From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JduKv-0001g4-4i for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:36:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A44FBE05A4; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nameserver1.mcve.com (nameserver1.mcve.com [216.155.111.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728B7E05A4 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.55] (shop.monetra.com [216.155.111.10]) by nameserver1.mcve.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7646A80DD for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <47E81EC6.4020002@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:36:06 -0400 From: Doug Goldstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC & baselayout-2 meets Gentoo References: <47E1F3C4.5060907@gentoo.org> <200803241708.01550.vapier@gentoo.org> <47E81A1A.60803@gentoo.org> <200803241732.25169.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200803241732.25169.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 16191171-d897-4d15-a990-d47a047065d0 X-Archives-Hash: 8b7d6a957837a99cafc41b9b6d7c4168 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: > >> Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >>> On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: >>> >>>> Doug Goldstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the >>>>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch >>>>> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is >>>>> available via the layman module "openrc". >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and >>>>> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. >>>>> >>>>> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the >>>>> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated >>>>> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, >>>>> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the >>>>> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. >>>>> >>>>> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their >>>>> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very >>>>> smooth transition. >>>>> >>>>> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. >>>>> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. >>>>> >>>>> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will >>>>> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. >>>>> >>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 >>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 >>>>> >>>> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger >>>> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the >>>> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and >>>> committed it to the tree this weekend. >>>> >>>> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm >>>> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since >>>> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my >>>> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for >>>> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. >>>> >>>> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit >>>> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. >>>> >>> not sure why you're getting pissy. but let's put some things straight >>> shall we. >>> >>> - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo. i changed things of >>> course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style >>> problems, and did some things wrongly. >>> >> You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell >> style. >> > > that wasnt what i was referring to, but converting to the tree standard only > makes sense for something going into the tree. > > >> And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad >> conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ >> > > looks/tested correct to me > breaks for anything with a module parameter -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list