From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc portage news item
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:09:08 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan.2011.04.14.08.09.07@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20110413195851.GB3116@linux1
William Hubbs posted on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:58:51 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:41:16PM +0200, "Pawe?? Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> On 4/13/11 8:15 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> > The baselayout package provides files which all systems must have in
>> > order to function properly. You are currently using version 1.x,
>> > which has several issues. The most significant of these is that the
>> > included init system is written entirely in bash, which makes it slow
>> > and not very flexable.
>>
>> I think it would be worth it to mention other problems too (just a list
>> of most important bugs if that makes sense).
>
> Does anyone on the list have any particular suggestions for what should
> be mentioned?
The definition of "important" might vary per person, but, while it has
been awhile since I ran baselayout-1, here's what I recall that I'd
consider significant.
1) While baselayout-1 had a parallel boot option, it was quite broken and
(partly or entirely, not sure which) non-functional. The same thing in
baselayout-2/openrc works WELL and I use it all the time. (Given the
emphasis placed on this in the media, the various boot-timing contests,
etc, and the fact that this feature puts Gentoo in-play again in regard to
speed-boots, it's a pretty big positive in favor of upgrading.)
2) In baselayout-1, the early-boot wasn't actually dependency based, but
rather, was strict-serial-order based on a list of IIRC four services
started in the exact order they were listed. (clock or whatever the
baselayout-1 name was, was one of them, IDR the others). OpenRC/
baselayout-2 is fully dependency based at every stage.
I mentioned both of these points earlier in a different context.
FWIW/IMHO, I don't believe the news item needs mentioning that it was bash
that made it slow and inflexible. Most users don't so much care whether
it's C or bash or java that made it so, only that it was. I'd personally
put more emphasis on the /how/ instead of the /why/, as I believe that's
what most users want to know. The above two points support that, thus,
reworking that whole bit:
"""
You are currently using version 1.x, which was slow and inflexible. It
was slow in part because the parallel boot option was broken, and
inflexible in part because dependencies didn't work until later in the
boot process, so the first few services had to be started in order
according to an arbitrary list.
"""
No mention of bash as a reason because that's an internal implementation
deal I as an admin don't want or need to care about. What difference will
it make in the way my system boots and how will that be better, that's
what I as an admin want to know.
(That said, the above can surely be improved as well. The ideas conveyed
are better I believe, more direct to what a Gentoo user/admin will likely
want to know, but I'm my wording isn't right, yet.)
--
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-14 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-13 18:15 [gentoo-dev] openrc portage news item William Hubbs
2011-04-13 18:27 ` Thomas Beierlein
2011-04-13 18:32 ` justin
2011-04-13 18:41 ` "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
2011-04-13 19:58 ` William Hubbs
2011-04-14 8:09 ` Duncan [this message]
2011-04-14 11:44 ` [gentoo-dev] " Rich Freeman
2011-04-15 14:04 ` Peter Hjalmarsson
2011-04-15 19:01 ` Duncan
2011-04-13 19:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " William Hubbs
2011-04-14 5:30 ` justin
2011-04-14 7:21 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-04-14 8:19 ` justin
2011-04-14 8:40 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-04-14 14:44 ` Dale
2011-04-14 15:41 ` Matthew Summers
2011-04-14 16:12 ` Dale
2011-04-14 18:48 ` William Hubbs
2011-04-14 10:32 ` [gentoo-dev] " Kfir Lavi
2011-04-14 10:32 ` Kfir Lavi
2011-04-14 10:51 ` Tomá? Chvátal
2011-04-14 11:03 ` Pacho Ramos
2011-04-14 11:21 ` Thomas Beierlein
2011-04-14 11:27 ` Sylvain Alain
2011-04-21 1:12 ` Donnie Berkholz
2011-04-21 2:23 ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-04-21 2:34 ` Jeroen Roovers
2011-04-22 10:39 ` Lars Wendler
2011-04-29 18:41 ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30 2:19 ` William Hubbs
2011-04-30 4:59 ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30 7:13 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-04-30 11:46 ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30 12:03 ` Rich Freeman
2011-04-30 12:58 ` Brian Harring
2011-04-30 13:06 ` Jeremy Olexa
2011-04-30 13:40 ` Brian Harring
2011-04-29 7:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " William Hubbs
2011-04-29 11:21 ` Rich Freeman
2011-04-29 11:28 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2011-04-29 17:18 ` Alex Alexander
2011-04-29 17:25 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-04-29 17:32 ` Alex Alexander
2011-04-29 17:52 ` Rich Freeman
2011-04-29 17:58 ` Alex Alexander
2011-04-30 0:34 ` William Hubbs
2011-04-30 9:04 ` Sergei Trofimovich
2011-04-30 12:41 ` Roy Bamford
2011-04-29 14:27 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-05-01 19:12 ` [gentoo-dev] " William Hubbs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=pan.2011.04.14.08.09.07@cox.net \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox