On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: > >> Doug Goldstein wrote: > >>> All, > >>> > >>> This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the > >>> Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch > >>> teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is > >>> available via the layman module "openrc". > >>> > >>> I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and > >>> work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. > >>> > >>> That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the > >>> transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated > >>> baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, > >>> suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the > >>> associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. > >>> > >>> I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their > >>> system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very > >>> smooth transition. > >>> > >>> That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. > >>> The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. > >>> > >>> Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will > >>> not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. > >>> > >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 > >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 > >> > >> It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the > >> OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and > >> committed it to the tree this weekend. > >> > >> Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm > >> backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since > >> I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my > >> attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for > >> OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. > >> > >> I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit > >> the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. > > > > not sure why you're getting pissy. but let's put some things straight > > shall we. > > > > - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo. i changed things of > > course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style > > problems, and did some things wrongly. > > You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell > style.
that wasnt what i was referring to, but converting to the tree standard only makes sense for something going into the tree. > And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad > conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ looks/tested correct to me > and removing important ewarn msgs to users? must be some magical ewarn only you can see because both ebuilds have the same set of messages > > - i'd been poking openrc on my system long before "this weekend". > > Great. And have you been working with the docs people or the arch teams > and with the Gentoo/FreeBSD guys? Because some of your changes might > work on your system, but not on other systems assuming it breaks on every system but mine, it's not keyworded/unmasked. so any problems are easily corrected for no penalty. > > - only pinging people on irc does not constitute real effort. we have > > e-mail addresses too last i checked. > > Refresh your mail client because I did send you e-mail. And as far as I > know, Roy did too. gmail says neither of you sent me an e-mail in the last month. perhaps you should cite exact subjects/message-ids/dates. > > - the package is still p.masked and de-keyworded. nothing precludes you > > from working on it. or writing docs. or doing anything else you're > > talking about doing. > > - and no, i dont have a problem sticking masked/de-keyworded things in > > the tree. people test things then. > > It's called teamwork, Mike. It also looks awful suspicious when we don't > hear a peep out of you about OpenRC until 1 day before I was going to > add it to the tree. What would have been so hard about sending a follow > up e-mail to the thread I started about getting OpenRC in the tree > saying "Hey everyone, going to stick openrc-9999 in the tree now with > some changes I feel should be made." you're pissing over nothing. i stated openly at a council meeting two weeks ago i was working on it. so if you want to draw any random conclusions you like, i frankly dont care. you can either continue to make a big stink over literally nothing, or continue on with what you've been doing. have at it. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
