From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9D61381F3 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 766CFE0B5D; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A65E1E0B3F for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:56:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-4d08288a.pool.mediaWays.net [77.8.40.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D40A33EB83 for ; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 14:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5203B190.80306@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:56:16 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.7 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] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8 References: <5202416C.5@gentoo.org> <1375881254.7753.41.camel@rook> <5202DD20.8050906@gentoo.org> <5203A880.1050306@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a8043cfd-5823-42a2-898b-2307d4264653 X-Archives-Hash: 2a81363ec21d0095d9df048702d56fb0 On 08/08/2013 04:34 PM, Ben Kohler wrote: > > As for the stabilization issue-- it seems like most people against > stabilization just want ~arch as a barrier or "whoa, wait up a sec" warning > to stable users don't stumble upon systemd, which makes sense. But I think > there are better ways to accomplish this, rather than abusing keywords. > That has nothing to do with abusing keywords. Gentoo supports systemd, fine. Still, OpenRC is our default implementation and I don't think something should be called stable _on gentoo_ that doesn't work with the system tools we have designed and advertise. If it works with both, then it's fine. Let me quote myself from another thread: > Maintaining a package in gentoo implies a few things for me: > We are able to support it properly which either means that we can > communicate with upstream or at least (if that fails) fix bugs on our > own. There is nothing "properly" about forcing a particular init system, upstream obviously doesn't care and our own devs gave up on trying to fix it. So nothing of that seems to apply here.