Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:29:42 -0400 as excerpted:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:02:15 Richard Freeman wrote:
>> If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then
>> why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it...
>
> people saw Roy mo
On Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:02:15 Richard Freeman wrote:
> If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then
> why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it...
there is no debate. people saw Roy moving on and got scared. as i said
originally, it makes no
On 08/25/2010 08:29 PM, Duncan wrote:
But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of
the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a
point that's not being argued any more? I believe that's what Mike's
WTFing about. It's not that you're wrong, you
Richard Freeman posted on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:16:29 -0400 as excerpted:
> And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not
> bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues. Sure, we
> can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not
> aba
On 08/25/2010 03:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote:
On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
Is the future development
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
> > If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
> > the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
>
> Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the f
On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote:
If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future
development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 n
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:57:46 -0500
Nathan Zachary wrote:
> I don't think that the documentation changes should be a determining
> factor in switching to OpenRC. If we are going to endorse using OpenRC,
> the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development.
> The documentati
On 24/08/10 22:21, Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
Hi,
Joshua Saddler:
The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked
stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc
files.
Is there a list of
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Joshua Saddler :
> > The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked
> > stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc
> > files.
>
> Is there a list of the needed changes?
Re
Mike Frysinger said:
> On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 08:57:45 Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > > , efficient, known-good solution
> > > that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new
> > > thingy that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug
> > > etc. etc.? I just don't see any
Hi,
Joshua Saddler :
> The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked
> stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc
> files.
Is there a list of the needed changes?
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/l
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:30:20 -0400
Richard Freeman wrote:
> Looking at the tracker bug, I see all of three issues blocking openrc
> from going stable. One is documentation,
> It seems like we should just make the next bugday "OpenRC Cleanup Day"
> or something like that. Everybody can take 1
On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 08:57:45 Thilo Bangert wrote:
> > , efficient, known-good solution
> > that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy
> > that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I
> > just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from s
On 08/24/2010 08:57 AM, Thilo Bangert wrote:
given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no
wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-)
Perhaps, but if we want to move in that direction perhaps we should
consider at least getting openrc stable first. That doesn'
> Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things
> automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it
> tends to be quite human-readable.
>
> ... why would I want to remove a
> stable
the biggest complaint about openrc is that its not in stable - go figure.
> , eff
On 08/23/10 19:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit :
>> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
>>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate
>>> where we
On 23/08/10 02:28 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:09 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
>> On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>>
>>> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
>>> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
>>>
>> Why? Presumably they're doing
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:09 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> >
> > Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
> > shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
> >
>
> Why? Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
>
> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
>
Why? Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own
parsing and executi
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit :
> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
> > So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate
> > where we want to go from there.
> >
>
> YES, let's
On Monday, August 23, 2010 11:05:45 Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less
> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed.
no one was talking about doing anything of the sort
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/23/2010 10:05 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit :
> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate
>> where we want to g
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit :
[lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate
> where we want to go from there.
>
YES, let's get it stable.
However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not mak
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/04/10 23:32, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
>> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
>>> gonna be looking at
Nirbheek Chauhan posted on Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:02:19 +0530 as excerpted:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman
> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
>>> gonna be looking at the openrc cod
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
>>
>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
>> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to
>> continue the development. Anyone that is i
On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote:
For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am
gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to
continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please
feel free to contact me off list to disc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/04/2010 02:39 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200
> Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>
>> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
>> that are using OpenRC then?
>> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big impro
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200
Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there
> that are using OpenRC then?
> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I
> am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least.
Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
> On 07/04/2010 05:29 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
>> now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do?
> How about switching to something that has a very active upstream?
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/150190
I just want to throw in systemd:
http://bugs.gentoo.o
On 07/04/2010 05:29 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
Hi list,
now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To be
honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally becoming
stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now that openrc has no
upstream anym
32 matches
Mail list logo
