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 <gentoo-user+bounces-132348-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1RZsDK-0006ep-VO
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:49:47 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD60321C175;
Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:49:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-iy0-f181.google.com (mail-iy0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE67121C066
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:48:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iaoo28 with SMTP id o28so8284529iao.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:48:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-type;
bh=1I+/KSh3jY+BWraA+p2/vHDIPHjTtFV0+KGWjvz76SU=;
b=BSjOmvCCRNLr0TvGbhkIqi7ToWh4BZgMCkTAW7VqjUDv8j9TcCn5pOVHdRBtkcasGq
40mpRDv2hevnI6gsVjKMdqCV5C+If9bTkq9+o2tiruxYmMHCNs/bf9iIKaPgvNo7cA4U
tvD98i4Ks5+YOnI8ZbSzbbZzZkR6FyJe3m9s0=
Received: by 10.50.51.234 with SMTP id n10mr13056468igo.10.1323643712106; Sun,
11 Dec 2011 14:48:32 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.45.9 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:48:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EE523AB.7030301@orlitzky.com>
References: <jatlds$eo7$1@dough.gmane.org> <4EE488D3.9090600@alyf.net>
<CA+hid6G93+F+T3oATiFLPzb64MqVtOtbp3xyS04FFAtR5ELEQg@mail.gmail.com> <4EE523AB.7030301@orlitzky.com>
From: James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:48:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+hid6HyXKTvNsVjHYSXom8sn5dzCpTqD_-JhabAo6M2Uh9uyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: e7973215-ba13-4c4f-af7a-99632d545287
X-Archives-Hash: a599f3110f0ed217f328cb3cdfab9c2c
On 11 December 2011 21:42, Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 01:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:
>>
>>
>> I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
>> just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
>> Wow, what a cynical move.
>
>
> It's not cynical. If you put a cool-sounding option in there with a comment
> that says "this will delete all of your documents," some idiot (i.e. me) is
> probably going to enable it.
>
> Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless you're
> looking for fun ways to break stuff.
It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC
a year+(?) ago.
"We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a
cynical response.
>> Perhaps someone could do some performance testing on rc_parallel to
>> find out if it's worth fighting for as a feature.
> The directive still exists, it's just been removed from the default rc.conf.
>
> This prevents people from thinking "well, parallel is better than not
> parallel, so I'm gonna enable it." I should know, most of my machines still
> have it enabled and that was the extent of the research I did.
Parallel _is_ better than Not Parallel - at least in general.
I was proposing some concrete testing rather than data-less
complaining, or allowing it to be brushed under the rug