[gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[James]

Hello,

Well here it seems that openrc is going ~arch

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-688090.html

So has it been decided that openrc is the way forward?


Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?



James

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Beau Henderson]

That post is 2 years old. IMHO something that's not been stabalized in that long of a period of time 
is worth waiting for unless you full on ~arch already.

That said, I use Calculate linux which is mostly stable but has OpenRC by default and I don't have 
any issues.

On 10/22/10 12:02, James wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well here it seems that openrc is going ~arch
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-688090.html
>
> So has it been decided that openrc is the way forward?
>
>
> Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
>


-- 
Kind Regards,
Beau Henderson

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Michael Hampicke]

> Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?

# genlop -l | grep openrc
     Thu Apr 24 14:05:53 2008 >>> sys-apps/openrc-0.2.2

I've been running baselayout2/openrc oder 2.5 years now without any
problems. Of course this does not mean it will run smoothly on your
gentoo box.

As I recall upgrading to b2/openrc involves lots of changed config files
(mostly conf.d init init.d), so you have to be a little careful.

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[David Relson]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:13:16 +0200
Michael Hampicke wrote:

> > Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
> 
> # genlop -l | grep openrc
>      Thu Apr 24 14:05:53 2008 >>> sys-apps/openrc-0.2.2
> 
> I've been running baselayout2/openrc oder 2.5 years now without any
> problems. Of course this does not mean it will run smoothly on your
> gentoo box.
> 
> As I recall upgrading to b2/openrc involves lots of changed config
> files (mostly conf.d init init.d), so you have to be a little careful.

My recollection was of

(1) being scared that I'd get the changes wrong for baselayout2
(2) the changes were easy and went smoothly
(3) no problems!

FWIW, i've been using baselayout2/openrc since August 2008.

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:18:38 -0400, David Relson wrote:

> > As I recall upgrading to b2/openrc involves lots of changed config
> > files (mostly conf.d init init.d), so you have to be a little
> > careful.  
> 
> My recollection was of
> 
> (1) being scared that I'd get the changes wrong for baselayout2
> (2) the changes were easy and went smoothly
> (3) no problems!

I have a similar recollection. Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
the devs decide to flip a keyword.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

It's not a bug, it's tradition!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Paul Hartman]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Michael Hampicke <gentoo-user@hadt.biz> wrote:
>> Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
>
> # genlop -l | grep openrc
>     Thu Apr 24 14:05:53 2008 >>> sys-apps/openrc-0.2.2
>
> I've been running baselayout2/openrc oder 2.5 years now without any
> problems. Of course this does not mean it will run smoothly on your
> gentoo box.
>
> As I recall upgrading to b2/openrc involves lots of changed config files
> (mostly conf.d init init.d), so you have to be a little careful.

Same here, no problems since day 1 in fully ~amd64 Gentoo system.

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Stroller]

On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> ... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
> so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
> the devs decide to flip a keyword.

I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of Roy Marples, who was originally a Gentoo dev and the baselayout maintainer.

As Roy developed baselayout 2 (or "baselayout - The Next Generation", as you might call it) he decided to generalise it, AFAICT, in order to make it useful to other distros or unices (e.g. the BSDs).

Roy is no longer a Gentoo dev and is no longer maintaining Openrc:
http://roy.marples.name/projects/openrc

I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457370.xml
or http://tinyurl.com/3xglcqb

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.

That Gentoo-dev thread was 3 or 4 months ago, and I haven't read all of it today. But based on my understanding, 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.

Stroller.

[gentoo-user] Re: baselayout --> openrc ?

[James]

Neil Bothwick <neil <at> digimed.co.uk> writes:


> I have a similar recollection. Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
> so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
> the devs decide to flip a keyword.


OK, thanks to all for the input. Yea
the thread is 2 years old, but, still
we are 'drifting' or has it been definitely
established that openrc is the only path forward?

Is this the decision of a few devs? the council?
A few senior devs?.......... Searching for
a while, openrc, seems to be adrift.


mostly curious, as I'm OK with BASH for now.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333759

James

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:19:51 +0100, Stroller wrote:

> > ... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
> > so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that
> > when the devs decide to flip a keyword.  
> 
> I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of
> Roy Marples, who was originally a Gentoo dev and the baselayout
> maintainer.
> 
> As Roy developed baselayout 2 (or "baselayout - The Next Generation",
> as you might call it) he decided to generalise it, AFAICT, in order to
> make it useful to other distros or unices (e.g. the BSDs).

> Roy is no longer a Gentoo dev and is no longer maintaining Openrc:
> http://roy.marples.name/projects/openrc

I sit corrected.

> I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457370.xml

An interesting read, until the rants start, we'll just have to wait and
see.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If you consult enough experts, you can confirm any opinion.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Stefan G. Weichinger]

Am 22.10.2010 17:06, schrieb Paul Hartman:

> Same here, no problems since day 1 in fully ~amd64 Gentoo system.

Same here (just for the records).

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 18:19 on Friday 22 October 2010, Stroller did 
opine thusly:

> On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > ... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
> > so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
> > the devs decide to flip a keyword.
> 
> I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of Roy
> Marples, who was originally a Gentoo dev and the baselayout maintainer.
> 
> As Roy developed baselayout 2 (or "baselayout - The Next Generation", as
> you might call it) he decided to generalise it, AFAICT, in order to make
> it useful to other distros or unices (e.g. the BSDs).
> 
> Roy is no longer a Gentoo dev and is no longer maintaining Openrc:
> http://roy.marples.name/projects/openrc
> 
> I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457370.
> xml or http://tinyurl.com/3xglcqb

Did you and I read the same mail thread? I read all of it - did you?

The end result of that is not that there is a question over openrc, it is that 
openrc will proceed. And anyone else that wants to pursue systemd or any other 
init system is free to go ahead and show up on gentoo-dev with running code. 
Meanwhile, openrc is where it's going.

The thread started with someone wondering about openrc; I disagree with your 
conclusion about where it ended.
> 
> 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.
> 
> That Gentoo-dev thread was 3 or 4 months ago, and I haven't read all of it
> today. But based on my understanding, 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 a straw man argument. Roy left Gentoo because of conflicts between his 
wish to be 100% POSIX compliant and most everyone else thinking they should 
just stick with bashisms and gentooisms. Which is kinda reasonable considering 
that portage REQUIRES bash.

Roy did not leave openrc development becuase it's a lost cause. He left 
apparently because it stopped being fun - the usual (and often only valid) 
case for such things.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:54:25PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:19:51 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> 
> > > ... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
> > > so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that
> > > when the devs decide to flip a keyword.  
> > 
> > I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of
> > Roy Marples, who was originally a Gentoo dev and the baselayout
> > maintainer.
> > 
> > As Roy developed baselayout 2 (or "baselayout - The Next Generation",
> > as you might call it) he decided to generalise it, AFAICT, in order to
> > make it useful to other distros or unices (e.g. the BSDs).
> 
> > Roy is no longer a Gentoo dev and is no longer maintaining Openrc:
> > http://roy.marples.name/projects/openrc
> 
> I sit corrected.
> 
> > I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457370.xml
> 
> An interesting read, until the rants start, we'll just have to wait and
> see.
> 

Well, there isn't any question as far as whether or not openrc is going to be stabilized, there is however a question of what's going to be put in ~arch afterwards, whether or not to use devicekit or whatever it's called now.
I don't have time to find them myself, but check out the two threads named "The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo" and "openrc stabilization update".
The general consesus is that for now openrc will be stabilized and the project has been brought back into Gentoo, so the question for now is what the future of ~arch is.
On an end-note, I've been using openrc for about a year now on a fully ~arch system and it works like a charm :)



-- 
Zeerak Waseem

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 18:19 on Friday 22 October 2010, Stroller did
> opine thusly:
>
>    
>> On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>      
>>> ... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
>>> so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that when
>>> the devs decide to flip a keyword.
>>>        
>> I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of Roy
>> Marples, who was originally a Gentoo dev and the baselayout maintainer.
>>
>> As Roy developed baselayout 2 (or "baselayout - The Next Generation", as
>> you might call it) he decided to generalise it, AFAICT, in order to make
>> it useful to other distros or unices (e.g. the BSDs).
>>
>> Roy is no longer a Gentoo dev and is no longer maintaining Openrc:
>> http://roy.marples.name/projects/openrc
>>
>> I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457370.
>> xml or http://tinyurl.com/3xglcqb
>>      
> Did you and I read the same mail thread? I read all of it - did you?
>
> The end result of that is not that there is a question over openrc, it is that
> openrc will proceed. And anyone else that wants to pursue systemd or any other
> init system is free to go ahead and show up on gentoo-dev with running code.
> Meanwhile, openrc is where it's going.
>
> The thread started with someone wondering about openrc; I disagree with your
> conclusion about where it ended.
>    

That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too.  It is coming 
but just not sure when.  Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting 
closer to that time.  It, like some of the newer versions of portage, 
appears to be stable and is used by many people but is not marked stable 
yet.  Both of those sort of confuse me sometimes.

I'm just hoping that when the switch comes, it is painless.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:37 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak 
Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:

> > > I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
> > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457
> > > 370.xml
> >
> > 
> >
> > An interesting read, until the rants start, we'll just have to wait and
> > see.
> >
> > 
> 
> Well, there isn't any question as far as whether or not openrc is going to
> be stabilized, there is however a question of what's going to be put in
> ~arch afterwards, whether or not to use devicekit or whatever it's called
> now. I don't have time to find them myself, but check out the two threads
> named "The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo" and "openrc stabilization
> update". The general consesus is that for now openrc will be stabilized
> and the project has been brought back into Gentoo, so the question for now
> is what the future of ~arch is.


It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that.

Until someone actually ponies up and commits something other than openrc to 
the tree, it's gonna stay on openrc.

I think you misunderstand what ~arch means.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 22:52 on Friday 22 October 2010, Dale did 
opine thusly:

> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 18:19 on Friday 22 October 2010, Stroller
> > did
> > 
> > opine thusly:
> >> On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:29, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >>> ... Openrc will be stabilised at some time,
> >>> so you may as well do the upgrade when you feel like it rather that
> >>> when the devs decide to flip a keyword.
> >> 
> >> I thought this was a matter of debate - Openrc was IIRC the creation of
> >> Roy Marples, who was originally a Gentoo dev and the baselayout
> >> maintainer.
> >> 
> >> As Roy developed baselayout 2 (or "baselayout - The Next Generation", as
> >> you might call it) he decided to generalise it, AFAICT, in order to make
> >> it useful to other distros or unices (e.g. the BSDs).
> >> 
> >> Roy is no longer a Gentoo dev and is no longer maintaining Openrc:
> >> http://roy.marples.name/projects/openrc
> >> 
> >> I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
> >> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e4573
> >> 70. xml or http://tinyurl.com/3xglcqb
> > 
> > Did you and I read the same mail thread? I read all of it - did you?
> > 
> > The end result of that is not that there is a question over openrc, it is
> > that openrc will proceed. And anyone else that wants to pursue systemd
> > or any other init system is free to go ahead and show up on gentoo-dev
> > with running code. Meanwhile, openrc is where it's going.
> > 
> > The thread started with someone wondering about openrc; I disagree with
> > your conclusion about where it ended.
> 
> That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too.  It is coming
> but just not sure when.  Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting
> closer to that time.  It, like some of the newer versions of portage,
> appears to be stable and is used by many people but is not marked stable
> yet.  Both of those sort of confuse me sometimes.
> 
> I'm just hoping that when the switch comes, it is painless.

Just do it. Seriously.

There are three blockers holding baselayout-2/openrc back, none of them affect 
you:

1. {something rare, I forget}
2. Something wierd about evms on weird arches
3. Some obscure mdadm thing

Those are blockers, true enough. But they are *Gentoo* blockers, not *Dale's 
Gentoo* blockers.

Seriously, just do it. You'll be glad you did. You'll spend an hour or three 
double checking lots of stuff in /etc/conf.d/ and then you can reap permanent 
benefits.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:59:18PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:37 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak 
> Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:
> 
> > > > I understood the future of Openrc within Gentoo to be in question:
> > > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_ce55de133ca592b638db758c9e457
> > > > 370.xml
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > An interesting read, until the rants start, we'll just have to wait and
> > > see.
> > >
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, there isn't any question as far as whether or not openrc is going to
> > be stabilized, there is however a question of what's going to be put in
> > ~arch afterwards, whether or not to use devicekit or whatever it's called
> > now. I don't have time to find them myself, but check out the two threads
> > named "The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo" and "openrc stabilization
> > update". The general consesus is that for now openrc will be stabilized
> > and the project has been brought back into Gentoo, so the question for now
> > is what the future of ~arch is.
> 
> 
> It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that.
> 
> Until someone actually ponies up and commits something other than openrc to 
> the tree, it's gonna stay on openrc.
> 
> I think you misunderstand what ~arch means.

I'll gladly be explained, just in case I should have it wrong. :-)

What I meant however was that there has been talk of starting a migration of ~arch users to devicekit when it is deemed ready. As far as I remember no conclusion was brought to that discussion other than openrc being moved inhouse and seeing how that went. So the ball is still in the air as far as openrc and a replacement goes, to my understanding.

-- 
Zeerak Waseem

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 651 bytes --]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:

> That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too.  It is coming 
> but just not sure when.  Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting 
> closer to that time.  It, like some of the newer versions of portage, 
> appears to be stable and is used by many people but is not marked
> stable yet.  Both of those sort of confuse me sometimes.

You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
coming out every day at the moment,.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Stupid user error. Terminate user (Y/n) ?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too.  It is coming
>> but just not sure when.  Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting
>> closer to that time.  It, like some of the newer versions of portage,
>> appears to be stable and is used by many people but is not marked
>> stable yet.  Both of those sort of confuse me sometimes.
>>      
> You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
> certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
> coming out every day at the moment,.
>
>    

Well, I run unstable portage here and it seems stable and reliable to 
me.  I know they are adding things and fixing things pretty regular but 
most packages do that anyway and a lot of them are marked as stable.

I read somewhere that the reason some of the later versions of portage 
are not stable is not because the new ones are not ready but because 
they want more testing of the old versions.  Not sure why that is tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Stroller]

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 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.

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. 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. 

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.  

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.

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 23:50 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak 
Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:

> > It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Until someone actually ponies up and commits something other than openrc
> > to  the tree, it's gonna stay on openrc.
> >
> > 
> >
> > I think you misunderstand what ~arch means.
> 
> I'll gladly be explained, just in case I should have it wrong. :-)
> 
> What I meant however was that there has been talk of starting a migration
> of ~arch users to devicekit when it is deemed ready. As far as I remember
> no conclusion was brought to that discussion other than openrc being moved
> inhouse and seeing how that went. So the ball is still in the air as far
> as openrc and a replacement goes, to my understanding.


~arch is the collection of unstable ebuilds in portage; stuff that is good 
enough for a release but not yet fully tested within a Gentoo system. With 
enough successful feedback from users, it is marked stable and moves to 
"arch".

~arch is not experimental, stuff planned for the future, someone's wicked 
overlay or anything else other than stable releases in a *gentoo* test phase, 
i.e. it's not so much the software that's being tested but the ebuild.

devicekit stands very little chance of ever being the default. It depends on 
dbus and expat. Remember hal and all the crap that came along with it? Gentoo 
is not Ubuntu or Fedora, it is installable on anything from ARM phones to 
IBM's gigantic hard iron. Why on earth would anyone mandate dbus to be 
compulsory on a headless server for example?

If you want to know what the future holds for Gentoo, best not to listen much 
to a bunch of dudes rambling on gentoo-dev and blogs. They're just talking, 
and talk is cheap. If you want to know what the future holds for @system and 
the toolchain, vapier is a good one to listen to. So's the council, GLEPs and 
whatever happens in voting. The kong thread that's been mentioned in this 
thread has a gem of a quote from vapier, something like:

"People saw Roy moving away from Gentoo, and freaked out."

That's it, nothing more. Some dudes freaked out.

Besides, lookee here:

nazgul ~ # eix -e devicekit
* sys-apps/devicekit
     Available versions:  (~)003 {doc}
     Homepage:            http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DeviceKit
     Description:         D-Bus abstraction for enumerating devices and 
listening for device events using udev

nazgul ~ # eix -e dbus-glib
[I] dev-libs/dbus-glib
     Available versions:  0.86 (~)0.88 {bash-completion debug doc static-libs 
test}
     Installed versions:  0.88(00:25:33 12/10/10)(bash-completion -debug -doc 
-static-libs -test)
     Homepage:            http://dbus.freedesktop.org/
     Description:         D-Bus bindings for glib

nazgul ~ # eix systemd
No matches found.

devicekit has one version (003) and systemd doesn't even have an ebuild in the 
tree. That system is probably sitting about where openrc was when Roy had 
gotten to 20% of where he eventually took it.

openrc works, it has three outstanding edge case blocker bugs. What possible 
technical reason is there to go chasing butterflies down some totally unproven 
path?

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:13 on Saturday 23 October 2010, Neil 
Bothwick did opine thusly:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too.  It is coming
> > but just not sure when.  Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting
> > closer to that time.  It, like some of the newer versions of portage,
> > appears to be stable and is used by many people but is not marked
> > stable yet.  Both of those sort of confuse me sometimes.
> 
> You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
> certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
> coming out every day at the moment,.


I'm waiting for tomorrow when my regularly scheduled portage update hits 
_rc100.

I guess we'll see then if portage has any rollover bugs in it's version number 
code or not :-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 00:26 on Saturday 23 October 2010, Dale did 
opine thusly:

> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:52:18 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> That was what I recalled about the openrc discussion too.  It is coming
> >> but just not sure when.  Me, I'm not switching until it starts getting
> >> closer to that time.  It, like some of the newer versions of portage,
> >> appears to be stable and is used by many people but is not marked
> >> stable yet.  Both of those sort of confuse me sometimes.
> > 
> > You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
> > certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
> > coming out every day at the moment,.
> 
> Well, I run unstable portage here and it seems stable and reliable to
> me.  I know they are adding things and fixing things pretty regular but
> most packages do that anyway and a lot of them are marked as stable.
> 
> I read somewhere that the reason some of the later versions of portage
> are not stable is not because the new ones are not ready but because
> they want more testing of the old versions.  Not sure why that is tho.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)


$PORTDIR/profiles/package.mask:

# Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> (05 Jan 2009)
# Portage 2.2 is masked due to known bugs in the
# package sets and preserve-libs features. See
# bug #253802 for details.
>=sys-apps/portage-2.2_pre

The old message for =sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc1 said something different, like 
"to enable further testing of the 2.1.6 series"


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>    
>>> You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
>>> certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
>>> coming out every day at the moment,.
>>>        
>    
>> I'm waiting for tomorrow when my regularly scheduled portage update
>> hits _rc100.
>>      
> Well, it hasn't happened yet. A day without a portage update, a rare
> thing these days.
>
> Maybe someone decided that Gentoo is not Debian and 99 release candidates
> should be enough for a bunch of python scripts.
>
>    

Or after 99 tries, they just can't do it right and should give up.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Friday 22 October 2010 21:52:18 Dale wrote:

> I'm just hoping that when the switch comes, it is painless.

It was for me - so much so that I wondered what all the fuss had been 
about.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.          Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 02:48:58AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 23:50 on Friday 22 October 2010, Zeerak 
> Mustafa Waseem did opine thusly:
> 
> > > It's openrc-${PV}+1 - there's no question about that.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > Until someone actually ponies up and commits something other than openrc
> > > to  the tree, it's gonna stay on openrc.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I think you misunderstand what ~arch means.
> > 
> > I'll gladly be explained, just in case I should have it wrong. :-)
> > 
> > What I meant however was that there has been talk of starting a migration
> > of ~arch users to devicekit when it is deemed ready. As far as I remember
> > no conclusion was brought to that discussion other than openrc being moved
> > inhouse and seeing how that went. So the ball is still in the air as far
> > as openrc and a replacement goes, to my understanding.
> 
> 
> ~arch is the collection of unstable ebuilds in portage; stuff that is good 
> enough for a release but not yet fully tested within a Gentoo system. With 
> enough successful feedback from users, it is marked stable and moves to 
> "arch".
> 
> ~arch is not experimental, stuff planned for the future, someone's wicked 
> overlay or anything else other than stable releases in a *gentoo* test phase, 
> i.e. it's not so much the software that's being tested but the ebuild.
> 

<snip>

It seems I understood then, though it seems I haven't clearly portrayed my understanding, but thanks for explaining anyway :)

> devicekit stands very little chance of ever being the default. It depends on 
> dbus and expat. Remember hal and all the crap that came along with it? Gentoo 
> is not Ubuntu or Fedora, it is installable on anything from ARM phones to 
> IBM's gigantic hard iron. Why on earth would anyone mandate dbus to be 
> compulsory on a headless server for example?
> 
> If you want to know what the future holds for Gentoo, best not to listen much 
> to a bunch of dudes rambling on gentoo-dev and blogs. They're just talking, 
> and talk is cheap. If you want to know what the future holds for @system and 
> the toolchain, vapier is a good one to listen to. So's the council, GLEPs and 
> whatever happens in voting. The kong thread that's been mentioned in this 
> thread has a gem of a quote from vapier, something like:
> 
> "People saw Roy moving away from Gentoo, and freaked out."
> 
> That's it, nothing more. Some dudes freaked out.
> 
> Besides, lookee here:
> 
> nazgul ~ # eix -e devicekit
> * sys-apps/devicekit
>      Available versions:  (~)003 {doc}
>      Homepage:            http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DeviceKit
>      Description:         D-Bus abstraction for enumerating devices and 
> listening for device events using udev
> 
> nazgul ~ # eix -e dbus-glib
> [I] dev-libs/dbus-glib
>      Available versions:  0.86 (~)0.88 {bash-completion debug doc static-libs 
> test}
>      Installed versions:  0.88(00:25:33 12/10/10)(bash-completion -debug -doc 
> -static-libs -test)
>      Homepage:            http://dbus.freedesktop.org/
>      Description:         D-Bus bindings for glib
> 
> nazgul ~ # eix systemd
> No matches found.
> 
> devicekit has one version (003) and systemd doesn't even have an ebuild in the 
> tree. That system is probably sitting about where openrc was when Roy had 
> gotten to 20% of where he eventually took it.
> 
> openrc works, it has three outstanding edge case blocker bugs. What possible 
> technical reason is there to go chasing butterflies down some totally unproven 
> path?
> 

In this case I'm completely with you. While there are nifty features in systemd it is nothing that can't be achieved by other means and openrc really does work brilliantly (for me) so I'm not exactly against systemd, I just don't see a point in using it. Other than aligning with other distros, but then what's the point of having different distributions if they all are alike :)

-- 
Zeerak Waseem

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[daid kahl]

On 22 October 2010 11:02, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well here it seems that openrc is going ~arch
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-688090.html
>
> So has it been decided that openrc is the way forward?
>
>
> Any caveats with openrc we should be aware of?
>

Just to put in my two cents, which is largely a smaller general point
and not related to the fairly informative discussion regarding openrc
itself.

Basically, any time I do a major update like this, I make a disk image
styled backup.  I run other backups more regularly (rsnapshot), but if
something hits the fan on an update and I don't have the time,
patience, or luck to fix it right away, then I just toss my system
back to exactly how it was without fretting.  These days it's either
the first point (a matter of time right then) or just a comfort factor
from my older days of doing large Gentoo updates and not knowing a lot
of the basics of how to properly update.

Anyway, systemrescuecd or even something simple like gparted live cd
will have partimage which is a quick and easy tool for full backups.
Just don't turn off the 2GB file size if you use the gzip option
(something goes wrong that I forget now).  Of course you can even use
dd if you it's your style.

I'm aware this strays slightly from the main question asked here, but
I think that question was considered already by others.

That being said, I too did the openrc migration a long ways back and
it was fine.  I also agree with the general sentiment that sticking
with ARCH or ~ARCH makes more sense.  But if you have some time right
now to do updates and plan to be really busy in the near future, then
that could be a reason to do such an update.

~daid

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 10/23/2010 5:03 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>>> You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
>>> certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
>>> coming out every day at the moment,.
>
>> I'm waiting for tomorrow when my regularly scheduled portage update
>> hits _rc100.
>
> Well, it hasn't happened yet. A day without a portage update, a rare
> thing these days.
>
> Maybe someone decided that Gentoo is not Debian and 99 release candidates
> should be enough for a bunch of python scripts.

Looks like someone agrees with you:

[ebuild     U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91]

Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha 
come *before* release candidate?  :)

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:30:55 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:

> > Maybe someone decided that Gentoo is not Debian and 99 release
> > candidates should be enough for a bunch of python scripts.  
> 
> Looks like someone agrees with you:
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91]
> 
> Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha 
> come *before* release candidate?  :)

That was my thought too, and they had to switch from 2.2 to 2.2.0 to stop
portage itself feeling the same. Perhaps it will be stabilised before
Debian 10.0 is released...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays
of W. Shakespeare but all they got was the collected works of Francis
Bacon

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 10:30 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> Looks like someone agrees with you:
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91]
> 
> Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha 
> come *before* release candidate?  :) 

One could argue that if you've had as many as 99 release candidates you
were pretty much alpha all along ;)

-a

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 16:30 on Sunday 24 October 2010, Mike 
Edenfield did opine thusly:

> On 10/23/2010 5:03 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 02:50:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>> You're mixing two different definitions of stable. Portage 2.2 is
> >>> certainly reliable, but it is anything but stable with a new version
> >>> coming out every day at the moment,.
> >> 
> >> I'm waiting for tomorrow when my regularly scheduled portage update
> >> hits _rc100.
> > 
> > Well, it hasn't happened yet. A day without a portage update, a rare
> > thing these days.
> > 
> > Maybe someone decided that Gentoo is not Debian and 99 release candidates
> > should be enough for a bunch of python scripts.
> 
> Looks like someone agrees with you:
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha1 [2.2_rc91]
> 
> Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha
> come *before* release candidate?  :)


Yes, but:

2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99



-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 478 bytes --]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha
> > come *before* release candidate?  :)  
> 
> 
> Yes, but:
> 
> 2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99

It should also come after 2.2, but I appear to have missed that release.

99 release candidates and then no release is something of an
anti-climax :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Eye of newt, toe of frog, regular Coke and fries to go, please.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[BRM]

----- Original Message ----

> From: Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > >  Although, perhaps I'm missing something but doesn't alpha
> > > come  *before* release candidate?  :)  
> > Yes,  but:
> > 
> > 2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99
> 
> It should also  come after 2.2, but I appear to have missed that release.

Why? 2.2 == 2.2.0

So 2.2.0_alpha1 would make a logical progression.

Ben

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT), BRM wrote:

> > > 2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99  
> > 
> > It should also  come after 2.2, but I appear to have missed that
> > release.  
> 
> Why? 2.2 == 2.2.0

Not in portage's eyes.
> 
> So 2.2.0_alpha1 would make a logical progression.

Since when did an alpha come after release candidates? That's anything
but logical. In order to fool portage into considering the alpha to be
later, the version had to be bumped from 2.2 to 2.2.0.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 20: Synthetic natural gas

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Dean Matzkov]

You're probably thinking of this:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=256188

It's a relatively rare bug, but it is quite annoying when it does happen.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are three blockers holding baselayout-2/openrc back, none of them affect
> you:
>
> 1. {something rare, I forget}

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout --> openrc ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 15:39 on Tuesday 26 October 2010, Dean Matzkov 
did opine thusly:

> You're probably thinking of this:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=256188
> 
> It's a relatively rare bug, but it is quite annoying when it does happen.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > There are three blockers holding baselayout-2/openrc back, none of them
> > affect you:
> > 
> > 1. {something rare, I forget}


No, not that one. That makes 4 :-)

But good to know about this bug, I also hit it occasionally.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com