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 A0BD51381F3 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:57:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5691CE0B6C; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:57:20 +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 824EBE0B30 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.78.108.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32AC833EBD5 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52061DEE.8030908@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:03:10 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130426 Thunderbird/17.0.5 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> <5204D30A.703@gentoo.org> <20130809165904.408a168e@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20130809165904.408a168e@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 159438cc-4c92-4307-91df-a2941732467a X-Archives-Hash: 24afae3f867ce8dab683d9c4558ee4f3 On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300 > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than >> openrc (baselayout). > > Was there the decision to only support a single layout on Gentoo? Where? > You kids don't remember the past ;) We had lots of people experimenting with non-baselayout/OpenRC solutions, but our support stance was always "You deviate from that, you're on your own" - einit, monit, s6 etc. have always been options, but never supported. >> There is *HUGE* difference between optional components and core >> components. > > Neither OpenRC or systemd is selected in @system; both are optional, > which one comes as default depends on how you obtain Gentoo. While > there's only a stage3 for OpenRC that does not exclude the possibility > that a stage3 for systemd may be made in the near future. Let me put it into simple words: Do not break my boot path. Again. I'm slowly reaching a zero-tolerance stance on regressions that make booting unreliable or broken, and just replacing OpenRC is about the worst way to trigger unexpected behaviour. > [snip] > Same for you, is your agenda to keep OpenRC and block any alternatives? I tolerate alternatives, but don't actively support them. > Our agenda is to keep Gentoo what Gentoo is defined as, follow its > philosophy and therefore do whatever is needed to provide our users a > choice to use Gnome 3.8 in a stable manner. ... while still providing reasonable support and stability > I don't see what all this has to do with an agenda of switching to > systemd, nobody is keeping you or anybody else from implementing or > porting support for OpenRC into GNOME 3.8; even if this were an agenda, > it would have been a very inefficient way to switch people to systemd. You say that as if we cared for Gnome. [snip] > There are a lot of Gentoo developers supporting it. Flashback to 2006... so it is true, the wheel keeps turning ...