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 B5C901381F3 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 369D4E0DF9; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:09:03 +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 6D9EBE0DE6 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.184.142.36] (85-76-162-131-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.162.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B56233EBF0 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <520521AA.2010904@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 20:06:50 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130802 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: <5203A880.1050306@gentoo.org> <5203B190.80306@gentoo.org> <20130808172340.7d2424af@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <5203C908.1000304@gentoo.org> <20130808185357.4208db83@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130808202627.4b474471@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130809020303.GA11215@linux1> <1376033807.30224.21.camel@kanae> <5204B6A9.1080309@gentoo.org> <5204E235.7010702@gentoo.org> <5204F36B.3090601@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <5204F36B.3090601@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7a8caccb-0333-4699-9daa-fdf4cafc5512 X-Archives-Hash: f98dcfa5755f5f11784e241fae214f74 On 09/08/13 16:49, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 09/08/13 15:36, hasufell wrote: >> On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: >>>> On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >>>>> It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd >>>>> and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. >>>> >>>> We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have >>>> been >>>> dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a >>>> _regression_. >>> >>> How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? >> >> The question puzzles me. For one it is >> * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system >> * it is the default init system in stage3 >> * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want to >> make/keep it a usable tool. If we can't, then there is a regression. It >> doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. > > baselayout-1, then later baselayout-2 and OpenRC were all created > because there was an need and no suitable ready solutions > systemd however is starting to look like a viable ready solution to > switch to > it's definately not an regression to switch to actively maintained > software, it's more of an improvement because OpenRC has been stalled > ever since Roy stopped hacking on it (all work put in by vapier, > WilliamH, and others is of course appericiated) > you know it's true if you have been with gentoo enough long > wrong choice of words as someone pointed out, s/stalled/slowed down/ or even s/stalled/slowed down a bit/ it came out too harsh. sorry for the noise.