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
