From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Multiple Update Issues - what order should things be done?
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:10:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201003082210.48865.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B954115.8070305@libertytrek.org>
On Monday 08 March 2010 20:25:25 Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2010-03-08 8:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > It feels like baselayout-2 and openrc have been in ~arch for a year
> > or more, so there's no telling when it will move to stable. I haven't
> > seen any indication from the dev either. In other words, only that
> > dev knows what his plans are.
>
> As always... ;) thanks...
>
> Almost forgot - are there any substantive advantages to moving to it,
> other than just getting it done now so you don't have to do it later?
baselayout-a/openrc is New! Shiny! Cool! Bleeding Edge new stuff! and you get
brownie points for running the latest greatest software. Plus, if it breaks
you get to fix both pieces and garner even more brownie points.
That's not a joke, many people run ~arch for that reason :-)
On the serious side, baselayout-1 is a hodgepodge of cruft accumulated over
the years, it only works well on Linux and requires bash. The various configs
are scattered around in a way that can only be documented as "the standard is
whatever baselayout is doing today". In brief, this is probably the second
worst thing it could possibly be. First place would be "nothing whatsoever"
baselayout-2 is an effort to have a base layout that is sane, portable, works
on other OSes, is not tied to bash and/or portage (neither of which are
guaranteed) and is written in portable C. So all-round, the new one is the
better solution for new installs.
However, in your case, I feel that "it ain't broke, don't fix it!" would
prevail.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-08 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-05 19:09 [gentoo-user] Multiple Update Issues - what order should things be done? Tanstaafl
2010-03-05 19:20 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-03-05 20:40 ` Sebastian Beßler
2010-03-05 23:30 ` Tanstaafl
2010-03-06 6:53 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-03-06 18:39 ` Tanstaafl
2010-03-07 18:17 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-03-07 23:54 ` Dale
2010-03-08 0:55 ` Neil Bothwick
2010-03-08 1:10 ` Dale
2010-03-08 12:44 ` Tanstaafl
2010-03-08 13:05 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-03-08 18:25 ` Tanstaafl
2010-03-08 18:32 ` Mark Knecht
2010-03-08 19:45 ` Neil Walker
2010-03-08 20:10 ` Alan McKinnon [this message]
2010-03-08 20:39 ` Dale
2010-03-08 20:55 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-03-08 22:39 ` Dale
2010-03-08 20:53 ` Neil Bothwick
2010-03-08 21:02 ` Tanstaafl
2010-03-08 22:41 ` Dale
2010-03-06 12:17 ` Peter Humphrey
2010-03-06 19:28 ` Tanstaafl
2010-03-07 10:21 ` Peter Humphrey
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=201003082210.48865.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com \
--to=alan.mckinnon@gmail.com \
--cc=gentoo-user@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