[gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

Hi list,

now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To be 
honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally becoming 
stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now that openrc has no 
upstream anymore.
If there's anyone out there who would volunteer to maintain openrc, please 
step up now or else I fear we must abandon openrc which would be very sad.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/326865
-- 
Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 07/04/2010 05:29 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To be
> honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally becoming
> stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now that openrc has no
> upstream anymore.
> If there's anyone out there who would volunteer to maintain openrc, please
> step up now or else I fear we must abandon openrc which would be very sad.

How about switching to something that has a very active upstream?

http://bugs.gentoo.org/150190

[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Daniel Schömer]

Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
> On 07/04/2010 05:29 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
>> now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do?
> How about switching to something that has a very active upstream?
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/150190

I just want to throw in systemd:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=318365
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Fabio Erculiani]

How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
that are using OpenRC then?
OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I
am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least.
I'm already spread over several things but I could give a hand to
other devs willing to take over.

-- 
Fabio Erculiani
http://www.sabayon.org
http://www.gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Markos Chandras]

That would be the best but I wonder who has the time to even support
this maintenance mode.  We could ask for help from our user community.
Maybe some of our users are quite familiar with the code and be able
to pick up the load fast enough

On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
> that are using OpenRC then?
> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I
> am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least.
> I'm already spread over several things but I could give a hand to
> other devs willing to take over.
>
> --
> Fabio Erculiani
> http://www.sabayon.org
> http://www.gentoo.org
>
>

[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1458 bytes --]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200
Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:

> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
> that are using OpenRC then?
> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I
> am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least.
> I'm already spread over several things but I could give a hand to
> other devs willing to take over.


http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_21f716d5ffa6f04520e39d12fbe43452.xml

> The only reason why OpenRC has not come up for stabilization by it's
> maintainers is the fact that everytime there's a new version readied
> for release, on the horizon there's new incompatible changes being
> planned for the next version. The OpenRC maintainers in Gentoo have
> always chosen to wait until OpenRC settles down a little bit. Now with
> the plan to drop support for certain features (ADSL and PPP support in
> the networking code), it's going to rewrite more Gentoo people to step
> up to develop and maintain this code.


I would say it's settled down now.

I don't think stable can wait another 2-3 years on baselayout-1 while we
switch to yet another rc system.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                                   and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets                        to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Jory A. Pratt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/04/2010 02:39 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200
> Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
>> that are using OpenRC then?
>> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I
>> am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least.
>> I'm already spread over several things but I could give a hand to
>> other devs willing to take over.
> 
> 
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_21f716d5ffa6f04520e39d12fbe43452.xml
> 
>> The only reason why OpenRC has not come up for stabilization by it's
>> maintainers is the fact that everytime there's a new version readied
>> for release, on the horizon there's new incompatible changes being
>> planned for the next version. The OpenRC maintainers in Gentoo have
>> always chosen to wait until OpenRC settles down a little bit. Now with
>> the plan to drop support for certain features (ADSL and PPP support in
>> the networking code), it's going to rewrite more Gentoo people to step
>> up to develop and maintain this code.
> 
> 
> I would say it's settled down now.
> 
> I don't think stable can wait another 2-3 years on baselayout-1 while we
> switch to yet another rc system.
> 
> 
For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to
continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please
feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting
openrc back on track.

- -- 
======================================================
Jory A. Pratt                  anarchy -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo Mozilla Lead
GPG: 2C1D 6AF9 F35D 5122 0E8F 9123 C270 3B43 5674 6127
======================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkww6okACgkQwnA7Q1Z0YSdhmQCgkKbxZtEX+xZ5EctZYMJ3gegR
w30AnidMZVVlTY6OLJ2/vR8dr9wQ/lRD
=F1WI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to
> continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please
> feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting
> openrc back on track.
>

Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support. 
However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on 
something that is more cross-platform if possible.

I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of migration 
for users), only to then move to something else anyway.  Why have two 
migrations when you can just have one?

If Gentoo just wants to own openrc and not use something else long-term, 
then by all means let's get it done.
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>
>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
>> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to
>> continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please
>> feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting
>> openrc back on track.
>>
>
> Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support.
> However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on something
> that is more cross-platform if possible.
>
> I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of migration for
> users), only to then move to something else anyway.  Why have two migrations
> when you can just have one?
>

The reason why people want to do an openrc migration right now is
because we don't know when we'll find something else to move to; make
it work with gentoo, make it work for everyone, iron out all the bugs,
and push it to stable. In all probability, and looking at our past
experience with pushing openrc to stable, it *will* take years. It's
too much work to maintain both baselayout-1 *and* openrc *and* find
something else to move to. It's best to move to openrc (which has
numerous benefits over baselayout-1, and has a maintainer now), and
then see what we can do.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Duncan]

Nirbheek Chauhan posted on Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:02:19 +0530 as excerpted:

> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
>>> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to
>>> continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please
>>> feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting
>>> openrc back on track.

Very cool. =:^)

If you/we're moving OpenRC development back in-house, a couple of the 
problems with OpenRC as it was, pretty much cease to exist any more.

The problems with OpenRC first trace back to, from what I can see, a 
disagreement some years ago, now -- which also played a non-minor role in 
Roy leaving Gentoo, as well.  Roy's idea was to take Gentoo toward POSIX 
shell compatibility, both init-system-wise and package-system-wise.  Over-
all, that went over like a lead balloon, a number of devs (including 
several core toolchain, etc, devs, and council members) /liked/ the bash 
extensions Gentoo relies on, and our package system remains solidly bash 
dependent today, both by policy and in practice.

But Roy was the baselayout (then including what's now openrc as well) 
maintainer, and he went ahead with his plans there, splitting baselayout 
into the Gentoo specific baselayout, and the init system itself, which was 
intended to be POSIX shell compliant and distribution and *nix system 
independent, as well as implementing core parts of it as native 
executables, thus speeding it up dramatically from the formerly almost 
entirely shell scripted implementation.

In large part (at least from the view from here as a user of the new 
system) it was due to the goals of POSIX shell compatibility and 
distribution agnosticism that delayed and drew out OpenRC development and 
stabilization so much, the reason why every time it seemed about ready to 
go stable, along would come new versions with dramatic changes, dropping 
more bashisms/gentooisms, or fixing bugs in the implementation triggered 
by the last round of drops.  Had the only or primary goal been simply the 
split and the switch to the native code core, many of the changes, for 
instance to the network subsystem, wouldn't have been necessary, and the 
more parallel reliable and faster native code system would have been able 
to stabilize far sooner.

But it would seem that whatever other distributions or BSDs he had hoped 
to get using OpenRC went with something else, instead, and as Gentoo has 
continued down the GNU/bash based system route, his interests and those of 
Gentoo have continued to diverge as well, so the OpenRC project has 
apparently become a dead-end as far as his interest is concerned, and he's 
abandoning it.

Too bad for what could have been for OpenRC, but bringing it back in-house 
does solve the two biggest problems Gentoo was having with it, all the 
unnecessary (from a Gentoo perspective) changes removing bashisms and 
gentooisms, and the fast rate of incompatible change, leaving Gentoo 
without a practical base for stabilizing anything.

>> Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support.
>> However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on
>> something that is more cross-platform if possible.
>>
>> I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of
>> migration for users), only to then move to something else anyway.  Why
>> have two migrations when you can just have one?
>>
> The reason why people want to do an openrc migration right now is
> because we don't know when we'll find something else to move to; make it
> work with gentoo, make it work for everyone, iron out all the bugs, and
> push it to stable. In all probability, and looking at our past
> experience with pushing openrc to stable, it *will* take years. It's too
> much work to maintain both baselayout-1 *and* openrc *and* find
> something else to move to. It's best to move to openrc (which has
> numerous benefits over baselayout-1, and has a maintainer now), and then
> see what we can do.

Well, given the above and assuming Gentoo could settle on a reasonably 
mature replacement within a reasonably short period (say 4-6 months), it's 
possible adopting and stabilizing that replacement wouldn't take the years 
and years that OpenRC has.  Presumably, whatever we were to settle on 
would already know where it was going, and wouldn't be doing the
change-horses-in-mid-stream thing that OpenRC was pulling, killing the 
bashims, etc, at the same time.

But those are some big assumptions.  I've gotten the impression that the 
projects making the big waves aren't all that mature, and while they 
hopefully aren't changing horses in mid-stream like OpenRC was doing, so 
the development shouldn't be as painful in that regard, they still have 
some serious growing to do before they're to the point where OpenRC is, 
today.

Really, even if Gentoo does ultimately switch to something else, we do 
need to get stable on something a bit more modern than the baselayout-1 
we're stuck with ATM, and OpenRC is pretty close to there, particularly 
since we're bringing it back in-house now, and it'll take some time for 
our new maintainer to get up to speed on it, so the only right away 
changes are likely to be what's necessary to fix the remaining bugs and 
stabilize what we have -- we're not trying to hit a fast changing target, 
as we were before, and there's nothing to trigger any more of those 
incompatible changes simply for POSIX compatibility or the like, since 
Gentoo depending on bash is a settled question at this point.

So really, openrc-for-stable it really needs to be, at this point.  Once 
that's for sure a settled question, /then/ we can debate whether Gentoo 
should try to switch to something more standardized, and what that might 
be if so, longer term.  But what's very likely to be another two years 
minimum, with no real upper bound at all at this point, on baselayout-1, 
for stable users, while Gentoo dumps an OpenRC that's very close to stable 
at this point, to chase after what could well be "the wind" for another 
two years or more, possibly to realize that's simply not going to work for 
Gentoo either, or if we force it, it'll be at the expense of serious 
feature regression, just isn't a good idea, and there's no way to /make/ 
it a good idea.

So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate 
where we want to go from there.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Gilles Dartiguelongue]

Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +0000, Duncan a écrit :
[lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate 
> where we want to go from there.
> 

YES, let's get it stable.

However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less
POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great
thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than
basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros).
At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't
think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency
based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for
their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do).

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Jory A. Pratt]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/23/2010 10:05 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +0000, Duncan a écrit :
> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate 
>> where we want to go from there.
>>
> 
> YES, let's get it stable.
> 
> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less
> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great
> thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than
> basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros).
> At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't
> think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency
> based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for
> their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do).
> 
There are still some bugs we are working on fixing. Once we are ready
for it to move stable we will. Anyone that is wanting to help get things
moving a bit faster can always join #gentoo-base and provide patches and
help resolve known issues.

- -- 
======================================================
Jory A. Pratt                  anarchy -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo Mozilla Lead
GPG: 2C1D 6AF9 F35D 5122 0E8F 9123 C270 3B43 5674 6127
======================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkxykOIACgkQwnA7Q1Z0YSeN3wCfYQjJ9CJzvQqncQvUMqqwwBax
cAQAn2ojNSggCJk6uf4LG4l7uojP6uoL
=l1Re
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 256 bytes --]

On Monday, August 23, 2010 11:05:45 Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less
> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed.

no one was talking about doing anything of the sort
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1087 bytes --]

On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +0000, Duncan a écrit :
> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
> > So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate 
> > where we want to go from there.
> > 
> 
> YES, let's get it stable.
> 
> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less
> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great
> thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than
> basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros).
> At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't
> think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency
> based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for
> their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do).

Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.


-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Auty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> 
> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
> 

Why?  Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own
parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for
that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the
initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the
different-yet-again language that goes with it.  Why not rely on a
prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds?

I'm happy to accept that there might be some very good reasons
(respawning a shell for each script is time consuming/expensive?), but
without describing what those reasons are, it's not a direction we
should just be following blindly...

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkxyuXMACgkQu7rWomwgFXrqSwCgjANV5zpo/uYrML+q1mCXHVgI
ghcAn2oRJMUl4V+L4UHhEABYUs58e9c5
=jen/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]

On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:09 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> > 
> > Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
> > shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
> > 
> 
> Why?  Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own
> parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for
> that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the
> initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the
> different-yet-again language that goes with it.  Why not rely on a
> prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds?

Systemd uses ini style files for configuration (and symlinks). So there
really isn't much of a parser in there. And obviously, they're going
through some bugfixing right now, so when F14/F15 are out there, we can
just take their complete solution ;)

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Patrick McLean]

On 23/08/10 02:28 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:09 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
>> On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>>
>>> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
>>> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
>>>
>> Why?  Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own
>> parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for
>> that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the
>> initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the
>> different-yet-again language that goes with it.  Why not rely on a
>> prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds?
> 
> Systemd uses ini style files for configuration (and symlinks). So there
> really isn't much of a parser in there. And obviously, they're going
> through some bugfixing right now, so when F14/F15 are out there, we can
> just take their complete solution ;)
> 

What are you actual complaints about openrc? What is wrong with using
shell for bootup, it works, it's fast (especially with openrc's ability
to be executed with dash) and _extremely_ flexible.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Patrick Lauer]

On 08/23/10 19:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +0000, Duncan a écrit :
>> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
>>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate 
>>> where we want to go from there.
>>>
>>
>> YES, let's get it stable.
>>
>> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less
>> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great
>> thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than
>> basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros).
>> At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't
>> think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency
>> based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for
>> their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do).
> 
> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
> 
That sounds like a really confused bad idea to me.
At some point you will have to execute a program with a pre-setup
environment and passing some arguments.

You could, of course, hack that together manually. It tends to be quite
a bit of work to get everything set up right and it's lots of code
you'll have to maintain.

Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things
automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it
tends to be quite human-readable.

... why would I want to remove a stable, efficient, known-good solution
that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy
that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I
just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW
FEATRUES" :)

(and OpenRC is by far the fastest init script manager I've seen.
Performance is really not a good argument against it in this case ...)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1413 bytes --]

> Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things
> automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it
> tends to be quite human-readable.
> 
> ... why would I want to remove a 

> stable

the biggest complaint about openrc is that its not in stable - go figure.

> , efficient, known-good solution
> that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy
> that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I
> just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW
> FEATRUES" :)

one feature of systemd is, that it has an active upstream. 

no, i dont think it would be a good idea to switch to systemd, just yet. 
but like the original baselayout was breaking new ground back when it 
first was developed, so is systemd. it does things differently and may not 
have all features yet, but from the outset it appears to be vastly 
superior to sysv-style inits, upstart and openrc.

granted, systemd is currently able to attract enthusiastic supporters. 
reducing these to mere fanboys, however, is ignoring the technical 
solution that systemd proposes. yes, openrc works great - and yes, systemd 
is a better solution when looking at the overall problem.

given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no 
wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-)

kind regards
Thilo

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 08/24/2010 08:57 AM, Thilo Bangert wrote:
> given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no
> wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-)

Perhaps, but if we want to move in that direction perhaps we should 
consider at least getting openrc stable first.  That doesn't mean making 
it perfect, or feature-complete.  However, right now we have two 
different baselayouts, and if we start talking about systemd then we'll 
have three.  Do we really want to start on seriously supporting a third 
one, without first getting rid of one of the other two?

Alternatively we could dump openrc and move everybody back to 
baselayout-1, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Looking at the tracker bug, I see all of three issues blocking openrc 
from going stable.  One is documentation, one is getting an evms upgrade 
stable on a few minor archs, and one is some kind of mdadm upgrade with 
a few issues.

It seems like we should just make the next bugday "OpenRC Cleanup Day" 
or something like that.  Everybody can take 15 minutes to contribute to 
a wiki on getting started with openrc, or blog about it, or whatever. 
the docs team can glean the best of that and get the docs in order.  The 
evms/mdadm/arch maintainers could make a push to finish up, and others 
can help them with patches.

If we made a real push to get OpenRC stable I'm sure that those bugs 
would get taken care of quickly.  Right now I'm guessing that it just 
isn't on anybody's radar.

Or, is the situation with OpenRC less stable than is apparent in the 
tracker?

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 942 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:30:20 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Looking at the tracker bug, I see all of three issues blocking openrc 
> from going stable.  One is documentation,

> It seems like we should just make the next bugday "OpenRC Cleanup Day" 
> or something like that.  Everybody can take 15 minutes to contribute to 
> a wiki on getting started with openrc, or blog about it, or whatever. 
> the docs team can glean the best of that and get the docs in order.

Oh heck no. We're not about to wade through a hundred blog entries/wiki articles in a desparate attempt to assemble a coherent guide.

Besides, Doug, Roy, and I wrote a migration guide a few years ago that I've been constantly updating:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml

The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc files.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 412 bytes --]

Hi,

Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>:
> The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked
> stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc
> files.

 Is there a list of the needed changes?

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>:
> > The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked
> > stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc
> > files.
> 
>  Is there a list of the needed changes?

Read the OpenRC guide, then read all our other guides. That's the list. It will require a line-by-line code scan to figure all this stuff out. Creating such a list would probably take almost as long as actually fixing the docs.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Nathan Zachary]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

  On 24/08/10 22:21, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200
> Christian Faulhammer<fauli@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Joshua Saddler<nightmorph@gentoo.org>:
>>> The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked
>>> stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc
>>> files.
>>   Is there a list of the needed changes?
> Read the OpenRC guide, then read all our other guides. That's the list. It will require a line-by-line code scan to figure all this stuff out. Creating such a list would probably take almost as long as actually fixing the docs.
I don't think that the documentation changes should be a determining 
factor in switching to OpenRC.  If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, 
the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.  
The documentation can be updated in due time.  Of course, that's just my 
opinion.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1728 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 642 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:57:46 -0500
Nathan Zachary <nathanzachary@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't think that the documentation changes should be a determining 
> factor in switching to OpenRC.  If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, 
> the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.  
> The documentation can be updated in due time.  Of course, that's just my 
> opinion.

It's not really a determining factor in whether or not we adopt it as our default system. It's just one of the big tasks to complete if we do. I'm not arguing against using OpenRC just because the docs will require significant rewrites.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
> If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
> the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.

Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future 
development of baselayout-1?  As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never 
had an upstream, and never will have one.

It seems like the debate is around openrc vs systemd or whatever.  I 
think the debate we need to settle first is openrc vs baselayout-1. 
Otherwise we're going to end up maintaining TWO different legacy init.d 
systems while we spend the next few years aiming for yet another target.

Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even 
if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it?

Alternatively, we drop support for openrc entirely, and tell everybody 
running ~arch to move to our next target or back to baselayout-1.  I 
don't think we want to have three targets to maintain.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1540 bytes --]

On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
> > If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
> > the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
> 
> Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future
> development of baselayout-1?  As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never
> had an upstream, and never will have one.

wtf are you talking about ?  Gentoo was always been the upstream of it.

> It seems like the debate is around openrc vs systemd or whatever.  I
> think the debate we need to settle first is openrc vs baselayout-1.
> Otherwise we're going to end up maintaining TWO different legacy init.d
> systems while we spend the next few years aiming for yet another target.

no clue what you're talking about.  Gentoo wrote baselayout from scratch, and 
then rewrote baselayout-2 from scratch in C to address some fundamental issues 
at the time.  then Roy stepped up to do a lot of the work and when he decided 
to part ways from Gentoo over POSIX shell/ebuild issues, but wanted to keep 
working on baselayout-2, we allowed him to do this.  so he renamed the core 
bits to openrc and moved the development off of Gentoo infra.

> Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even
> if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it?

it's already cleaned up.  this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1 
and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 08/25/2010 03:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote:
>> On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
>>> If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
>>> the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
>>
>> Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future
>> development of baselayout-1?  As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never
>> had an upstream, and never will have one.
>
> wtf are you talking about ?  Gentoo was always been the upstream of it.
>

Uh, that was essentially my point...  :)

Clearly upstream support is not an issue that distinguishes openrc from 
baselayout-1.

>> Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even
>> if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it?
>
> it's already cleaned up.  this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1
> and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase.

And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not 
bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues.  Sure, we 
can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not 
abandon the work done so far, because doing so means living with 
baselayout-1 for another few more years.

I was just being a bit subtle in my argument...

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Duncan]

Richard Freeman posted on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:16:29 -0400 as excerpted:

> And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not
> bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues.  Sure, we
> can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not
> abandon the work done so far, because doing so means living with
> baselayout-1 for another few more years.

AFAIK, you're arguing the (possible, but really never became more than a 
potential) debate of several months ago.  As OpenRC was originally from 
Gentoo's baselayout, it's not a big problem to re-adopt it as upstream 
once again, certainly less of a problem at this late date than staying on 
baselayout-1 stable for another several years would be likely to be, given 
how legacy it is, and how close to stable it already is.  The loss of 
external upstream was just one more hiccup of a number of them over the 
years, and isn't a big problem, especially when someone's already stepped 
for the job.

Perhaps we'll eventually switch to something else, but having seen the 
pains openrc went thru, I'd certainly not want to jump on to upstart or 
the like at this point.  Let the new round of candidates mature a bit, and 
then do an evaluation.  Meanwhile, what few bugs remain for openrc 
stabilization pale in comparison to the bugs and adaption issues we'd have 
moving to something else, and baselayout-1 really /is/ anachronistic and 
not a particularly viable option at this point, so for the medium term, 
openrc remains the only really viable option.

But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of 
the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a 
point that's not being argued any more?  I believe that's what Mike's 
WTFing about.  It's not that you're wrong, you're not, it's that you're 
debating a question that's no longer being asked.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Richard Freeman]

On 08/25/2010 08:29 PM, Duncan wrote:
> But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of
> the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a
> point that's not being argued any more?  I believe that's what Mike's
> WTFing about.  It's not that you're wrong, you're not, it's that you're
> debating a question that's no longer being asked.
>

See:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098
and
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098

The post I replied to cited upstream issues as a reason not to adopt 
OpenRC.  My point is that upstream issues are not a distinguishing 
factor between OpenRC and baselayout-1.

It isn't like I'm re-opening a thread from months ago.  I'm replying 
directly to a point others have raised.

If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then 
why is it even being discussed in this way?  Let's just do it...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]

On Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:02:15 Richard Freeman wrote:
> If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then
> why is it even being discussed in this way?  Let's just do it...

there is no debate.  people saw Roy moving on and got scared.  as i said 
originally, it makes no difference to us.  we're moving to openrc and it will 
continue to be our default init system for the foreseeable future and the 
support channel is unchanged: go to bugs.gentoo.org.

as for people who want to move to the latest shiny init, as i also said 
before, nothing is stopping them from getting it working today.  we've had 
alternative init systems in the past that drop-in replace baselayout/openrc 
and there will continue to be ones in the future.

however, until someone actually does the work to get one of the alternatives 
in the tree and actually working with other packages, there is no debate to be 
had as to the default init package.

i'd also highlight that openrc focuses on one thing: it exists to boot the 
system and manage daemons via init scripts.  it does not do all of the 
extended things that systemd is taking over (inetd, crond, udevd, etc...).
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:29:42 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:02:15 Richard Freeman wrote:
>> If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then
>> why is it even being discussed in this way?  Let's just do it...
> 
> people saw Roy moving on and got scared.

That sums it up nicely, Vapier.  Thanks. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 872 bytes --]

On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 08:57:45 Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > , efficient, known-good solution
> > that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy
> > that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I
> > just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW
> > FEATRUES" :)
> 
> one feature of systemd is, that it has an active upstream.

... and so does openrc

> no, i dont think it would be a good idea to switch to systemd, just yet.
> but like the original baselayout was breaking new ground back when it
> first was developed, so is systemd. it does things differently and may not
> have all features yet, but from the outset it appears to be vastly
> superior to sysv-style inits, upstart and openrc.

nothing is stopping you or anyone else from making systemd work under Gentoo
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 614 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 08:57:45 Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > , efficient, known-good solution
> > > that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new
> > > thingy that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug
> > > etc. etc.? I just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from
> > > saying "OMG HAZ NEW FEATRUES" :)
> > 
> > one feature of systemd is, that it has an active upstream.
> 
> ... and so does openrc

presumably you are referring to this:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/openrc/

?

Thats great news. Thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Anthony G. Basile]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/04/10 23:32, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
>>> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to
>>> continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please
>>> feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting
>>> openrc back on track.
>>>
>>
>> Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support.
>> However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on
something
>> that is more cross-platform if possible.
>>
>> I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of
migration for
>> users), only to then move to something else anyway.  Why have two
migrations
>> when you can just have one?
>>
>
> The reason why people want to do an openrc migration right now is
> because we don't know when we'll find something else to move to; make
> it work with gentoo, make it work for everyone, iron out all the bugs,
> and push it to stable. In all probability, and looking at our past
> experience with pushing openrc to stable, it *will* take years. It's
> too much work to maintain both baselayout-1 *and* openrc *and* find
> something else to move to. It's best to move to openrc (which has
> numerous benefits over baselayout-1, and has a maintainer now), and
> then see what we can do.
>

That's true, but there's also the fact that openrc has merits which
make it an attractive choice --- it is not just that we're stuck with
it.  We've all used other init systems.  I like openrc best.  Its
excellent for servers and compatible with all the goodies people want
on desktops.  It is one of the features that attracted me to Gentoo.
I'm going to be helping Jory and Patrick with this one.  If people
feel strongly that we need another init system, it would be
interesting to have Gentoo compatible with others (although this
sounds like quagmire).  However, I wouldn't want to see openrc go.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkwx2AUACgkQl5yvQNBFVTWmrwCbBdgx7H0KF9ugoO7Rwe9yOJTW
2TwAnRDnABYPAUyT2cH0i4rsyPQ8MsiY
=+yG6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

El dom, 04-07-2010 a las 16:29 +0200, Lars Wendler escribió:
> Hi list,
> 
> now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To be 
> honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally becoming 
> stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now that openrc has no 
> upstream anymore.
> If there's anyone out there who would volunteer to maintain openrc, please 
> step up now or else I fear we must abandon openrc which would be very sad.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/326865


What is its status over current baselayout-1? I am still using last one,
but seems that baselayout-2+openrc have some advantages over current
stable, then, maybe we should stabilize it anyway (when possible) until
a better replacement is found :-/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:29:57 Lars Wendler wrote:
> now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To be
> honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally
> becoming stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now that
> openrc has no upstream anymore.
> If there's anyone out there who would volunteer to maintain openrc, please
> step up now or else I fear we must abandon openrc which would be very sad.

like i already told William a few months ago, it really doesnt matter.  openrc 
was a Gentoo project to start with and since it is all based in git, there's 
nothing for us to do -- we already have an openrc git repo on the Gentoo git 
server.

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/openrc.git;a=summary
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1447 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 04 Juli 2010, 23:02:39 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> On Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:29:57 Lars Wendler wrote:
> > now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To be
> > honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally
> > becoming stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now that
> > openrc has no upstream anymore.
> > If there's anyone out there who would volunteer to maintain openrc,
> > please step up now or else I fear we must abandon openrc which would be
> > very sad.
> 
> like i already told William a few months ago, it really doesnt matter. 
> openrc was a Gentoo project to start with and since it is all based in
> git, there's nothing for us to do -- we already have an openrc git repo on
> the Gentoo git server.
> 
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/openrc.git;a=summary
> -mike

Not very clear to anyone as metadata.xml still contains this snippet:

<maintainer>                                                                    
<email>roy@marples.name</email>                                                 
<name>Roy Marples</name>                                                        
<description>Upstream - please CC him on valid bugs</description>               
</maintainer>                                                                   

-- 
Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1194 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 04, 2010 18:04:29 Lars Wendler wrote:
> Am Sonntag 04 Juli 2010, 23:02:39 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> > On Sunday, July 04, 2010 10:29:57 Lars Wendler wrote:
> > > now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To
> > > be honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally
> > > becoming stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now
> > > that openrc has no upstream anymore.
> > > If there's anyone out there who would volunteer to maintain openrc,
> > > please step up now or else I fear we must abandon openrc which would be
> > > very sad.
> > 
> > like i already told William a few months ago, it really doesnt matter.
> > openrc was a Gentoo project to start with and since it is all based in
> > git, there's nothing for us to do -- we already have an openrc git repo
> > on the Gentoo git server.
> > 
> > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/openrc.git;a=summary
> 
> Not very clear to anyone as metadata.xml still contains this snippet:

which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it 
certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 337 bytes --]


Am Montag 05 Juli 2010, 00:15:44 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
> it
> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.

Which I was nowhere trying to imply. I just wanted to have this situation 
sorted out which now hopefully seems to be the case.

-- 
Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)
Gentoo developer and bug-wrangler

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it 
> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.

I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a
brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1263 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 09:03:41PM -0400, Olivier Crrrte wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it 
> > certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
> 
> I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
> switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a
> brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
> the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.

Requiring policykit, let alone networkmanager and dbus as a default is 
not something I'd personally agree with as a sane choice.  If you're 
trying to build *just* a desktop distro, sure, it's sane.  We're not 
however, thus invalidating those options from where I'm sitting.

Regarding systemd, someone needs to do some pretty serious prototyping 
of it before it's even an option- on paper it looks rather promising.  
Paper != reality.  With respect to systemd's upstream, someone has to 
do the legwork of proving it matches its hype- specifically that it is 
a good fit for gentoo.

I'll skip the modern tools portion of the complaint, since that's 
just a bit ranty ;)

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> schrieb:

> Requiring policykit, let alone networkmanager and dbus as a default is 
> not something I'd personally agree with as a sane choice.  If you're 
> trying to build *just* a desktop distro, sure, it's sane.  We're not 
> however, thus invalidating those options from where I'm sitting.

ACK. I'd never put any system into production which requires dbus,
no change.

Maybe I'll find some time to rewrite systemd w/ dbus. 
The overall concepts seem very promising to me - quite the same
direction I'm planning to go into.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1022 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 04, 2010 21:03:41 Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it
> > certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
> 
> I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
> switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a
> brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
> the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.

no one ever really carried Gentoo init.d scripts except for projects that were 
doing their development in Gentoo, so there really is no change here.

as for the other init packages, you're certainly free to use whatever you want 
on your system.  as for the rest, openrc doesnt conflict with PolicyKit or 
NetworkManager or anything else, nor does it prevent you from using those 
services at all.  so statements carrying such implications are mere FUD.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

2010/7/5 Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org>:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it
>> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
>
> I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
> switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a
> brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
> the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.
>

What you are saying makes sense for desktop users since they will
likely already have consolekit/policykit/nm-applet installed, and
hence using NetworkManager for all network management makes sense.
However, this makes very little sense for people who install gentoo on
servers. Requiring these things of them would be a disservice on our
part (we're not fedora/ubuntu). And there is the issue that
NetworkManager (aka NM) does not have any command line tools to
control it (bring individual interfaces on/off, etc). cnetworkmanager
exists, but it's third-party application, and I don't think it's that
widely used/tested.

From what I can see, we have three options:
(a) Make our existing openrc network code + openrc configuration files
work with systemd, and move to systemd by default
(b) Make systemd work with openrc+NM configuration files[1], make NM
work w/o PK/CK[2], add command line tools to NM, and move to systemd
by default.
(c) Support systemd as an alternative init system for use by desktop users.

I'd go with (c), personally, but if enough people are interested, they
can pursue any of these options.


1. There's an ongoing GSoC project in Gentoo to make NM work with
openrc's configuration files. It is proceeding quite successfully
thanks to the excellent work of Mu Qiao.
2, PK == polkit, CK == consolekit

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> schrieb:

> What you are saying makes sense for desktop users since they will
> likely already have consolekit/policykit/nm-applet installed, and
> hence using NetworkManager for all network management makes sense.

Actually, I've got several Gentoo-based desktop systems, none of 
them uses any these packages.

> From what I can see, we have three options:
> (a) Make our existing openrc network code + openrc configuration files
> work with systemd, and move to systemd by default
> (b) Make systemd work with openrc+NM configuration files[1], make NM
> work w/o PK/CK[2], add command line tools to NM, and move to systemd
> by default.
> (c) Support systemd as an alternative init system for use by desktop users.

  (d) Fix systemd to get rid of dependencies to dbus, etc.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Doug Goldstein]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> * Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> schrieb:
>
>> What you are saying makes sense for desktop users since they will
>> likely already have consolekit/policykit/nm-applet installed, and
>> hence using NetworkManager for all network management makes sense.
>
> Actually, I've got several Gentoo-based desktop systems, none of
> them uses any these packages.
>
>> From what I can see, we have three options:
>> (a) Make our existing openrc network code + openrc configuration files
>> work with systemd, and move to systemd by default
>> (b) Make systemd work with openrc+NM configuration files[1], make NM
>> work w/o PK/CK[2], add command line tools to NM, and move to systemd
>> by default.
>> (c) Support systemd as an alternative init system for use by desktop users.
>
>  (d) Fix systemd to get rid of dependencies to dbus, etc.
>
>

(e) Get our network scripts compatible with netcf [1], which is the
way of the future for letting applications modify the network
configuration of the system.

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/netcf/


-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Patrick Lauer]

On 07/05/10 03:03, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it 
>> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
> 
> I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
> switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. 
Err what. So instead of using our well-known and rather robust crap you
want to use other people's more shiny untested crap?

I still haven't seen any compelling reason for systemd apart from a
fuzzy "it's faster" (which openrc already satisfies). Policykit is one
of those things that are a serious pain to get working (hello XML!) and
NetworkManager ... oh dear, you can't be serious. Debugging that beast
made me realize how bad things can get. Let's just say that I'd like to
switch upstream to state 9 for reason 6 a few times until they say
"Warning: Error successfully happened!" or something like that.



> Anyone with half a
> brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
> the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.
> 
"Modern tools" ? OpenRC is the fastest and most reliable init system
I've seen in quite some time. It even has the most awesome feature that
"stop" stops services! (Which some other distros still don't manage
reliably)
Add human-readable config files and no silly dependencies to the list
and you have an awesome tool. No idea why you don't like having nice
features ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Jon Portnoy]

On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 09:03:41PM -0400, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it 
> > certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
> 
> I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
> switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a
> brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
> the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.
> 


I wasn't looking to run Ubuntu, but thanks anyway 8)

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Luca Barbato]

On 07/05/2010 03:03 AM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have done.  it 
>> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
> 
> I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
> switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a
> brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
> the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.
> 

Not suitable for all our use-cases, not as stable as openrc nowadays,
not as fast as suggested and for server usage plainly wrong.

I'd put openrc on freedesktop btw.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Anthony G. Basile]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/23/2010 04:21 PM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 07/05/2010 03:03 AM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 18:15 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> which is trivial to fix and anyone with commit privs could have
done.  it
>>> certainly doesnt warrant a paniced "the sky is falling" message.
>>
>> I think this is a great occasion to dump our stupid custom crap and
>> switch to SystemD, PolicyKit, NetworkManager, etc. Anyone with half a
>> brain already dropped our stuff. And the lack of use of modern tools is
>> the reason I don't use Gentoo on my work computer anymore.
>>
>
> Not suitable for all our use-cases, not as stable as openrc nowadays,
> not as fast as suggested and for server usage plainly wrong.
>
> I'd put openrc on freedesktop btw.
>
> lu
>
 Agreed.  For example, if one does cluster management with pacemaker
or heartbeat you need to stick to more traditional shell based init
scripts.  Except for the lack of manpower, it would be nice to offer
our users different flavors of system startups, but dropping openrc
would not be a good idea.

- -- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Developer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkxy2mYACgkQl5yvQNBFVTWXagCeMSxOP31Ze32pexpBLh9m0H0T
u5UAnjhiMPMGjnu5MULrfwibGORBC31A
=UXGG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 325 bytes --]

On Monday, August 23, 2010 16:21:44 Luca Barbato wrote:
> I'd put openrc on freedesktop btw.

we've sort of already settled into the places ... jumping to another place 
doesnt gain us much.  current infrastructure also already enables all the 
Gentoo devs who wish to contribute (git/http/xml/bugzilla/etc...).
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo

[Luca Barbato]

On 08/23/2010 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, August 23, 2010 16:21:44 Luca Barbato wrote:
>> I'd put openrc on freedesktop btw.
> 
> we've sort of already settled into the places ... jumping to another place 
> doesnt gain us much.  current infrastructure also already enables all the 
> Gentoo devs who wish to contribute (git/http/xml/bugzilla/etc...).
> -mike

I'd do like enlightenment does. People wandering around fdo will notice
and maybe help a bit. We want more acceptance and hopefully have other
users beside ourselves. (I'm sick of having stuff shoved down our throat
just because they are apparently standard)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero