From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1P9SXU-0007xE-EU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:04:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CB3BE0683; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DDA2E0683 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy10 with SMTP id 10so1081687ewy.40 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:04:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=68fa9ARPaXGSOmYZOahUQ/dPVWh4/CVhnEMPb+pX3KU=; b=rHSbMMmljKjPRZ87gxO5X3Ewlwxsp+xZ01qFhc3Y5QwfUVCYVVGzyOGI0IahfLuRpb zy2BmVc31QwqYL/JZ+k1qUv1O6OQ0WppN7Yqn2jFUbmKkHFLDNsXvbI5hXcJlAyTue9o s0sXpzJF+L0SFZ+4N7RUFhZu8fYd5IqI5kT7Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=CU9Es7NwG2Wb7kFBXJYuQ3xc8v0dl9yfT/ti6f5cK6uboCtrHl7Fs3P500RvqGpXor uDlGStDaFz0s/A714UDagRihmy4rXKmLxxyoL7vTTOR2Dwt2v792Q8ANQYvpzBwGgi07 EzS9AkBECE/b50l7jBgCrT3toHPMTo5lAdqAQ= Received: by 10.14.127.200 with SMTP id d48mr2877884eei.10.1287795859591; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-215-2-42.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.215.2.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v56sm4061620eeh.20.2010.10.22.18.04.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:04:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ? Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 03:04:54 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-ck-r4; KDE/4.5.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <201010222232.21958.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <9C30BBF9-6CA6-4F66-8165-836172D35C7A@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <9C30BBF9-6CA6-4F66-8165-836172D35C7A@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201010230304.54341.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 4663b69e-5ff6-4cf1-aba8-9dc8d14cb689 X-Archives-Hash: 5a424d7d90c845501f97515f1496f90d Apparently, though unproven, at 00:43 on Saturday 23 October 2010, Stroller did opine thusly: > On 22 Oct 2010, at 21:32, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > ... > > Did you and I read the same mail thread? I read all of it - did you? > > Apparently you have poorer reading comprehension that I do: > >> That Gentoo-dev thread was 3 or 4 months ago, and I haven't read all of > >> it today. I saw that. I thought it odd you would cite the thread in your reasoning right after saying you hadn't read all of it. I wanted you to see the strangeness of that on your own. > I would stand by my advice: > >> ... I would discourage anyone in stable > >> from migrating to Openrc unless they need to, or unless they're deciding > >> to run entirely ~arch packages on their system. From my understanding I > >> would "wait and see", and migrate when the devs decide the time is right > >> for a mass migration of stable users. That's fine. people running stable should stick with stable for the most part. See below. > This is all totally irrelevant: > > That's a straw man argument. Roy left Gentoo because of conflicts between > > his wish to be 100% POSIX compliant ... > > Roy did not leave openrc development becuase it's a lost cause > > and it has nothing to do with what I said. And your response now has nothing to do with what I said. I wasn't commenting on the merits of migrating, I was commenting on you quoting Roy: "> Roy is the author, his own words: > The fact that several people said they would attempt a > stable push and then gave up (I was one - lol) says quite a > bit really. " Now why would you have quoted that? I can see only one reason - the author hints at it being not good enough therefore you should look long and hard before using it. I pointed out, correctly I believe, that that is irrelevant. Roy left Gentoo and openrc because he couldn't have his way re POSIX compliance. That's a straw man - setting up a weak disrelated argument to somehow prove your point later. It's fallacious. > My advice was made in response to Neil's comment: > >>> you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when > >>> the devs decide to flip a keyword. > > I've snipped that to an even tighter crop, so that you don't miss what he > said. And you snipped out the very quote from Roy above I was commenting on. I saw that. So I put it back. > > Can I summarise my advice as: > > Don't migrate a single package to ~arch just for the fun of it. > > ?? > > I'm pretty sure you yourself have said in the past to either run stable or > ~arch, but not to mess around with unmasking the odd single or couple of > packages here or there. I agree with you, on this occasion. I never said in this thread that anyone should not do that. I generally do advise people to stick with one or the other by and large. > When "the devs decide to flip a keyword" then the documentation for the > Openrc migration will be at its best. The migration will be fully > supported for stable users, and there will be lots of discussion about it > here. It will be the best time to make the switch. > > Stroller. > > > PS: please don't CC me on messages to the list. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com