On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 20:41:32 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > I should point out that I have not extensively examined openrc
I have to say that I'm really disappointed by the tech ctte attitude toward OpenRC in general. I pointed out to bdale (privately) as well that this was unacceptable. I've seen *many* quotes like this one: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:46:43 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > I haven't really looked in depth at OpenRC or other solutions, since > from the descriptions made by other people, I think it's not > comparable to systemd/upstart. Christoph, you don't *think*, you've just *heard of* from others (which may be systemd or upstart supporters). Please learn to think by yourself!!! Unfortunately, it seems it's going to be the way OpenRC will be evaluated: because some people *pretended* that OpenRC wouldn't fit the bill, it's just discarded without even having a look at how it works, its features, and its implementation. That OpenRC isn't the best, I can agree to *read* that, even if this isn't my opinion. That it has less feature, I agree, but I don't think the tech ctte choice should be driven by the number of features, but by a set of requirements, and then choose the best implementation for them. But that OpenRC just hasn't been considered just because of rumors is really unacceptable. It is my strong opinion that, because OpenRC is the only one which has been ported to all Debian arch, and that because it has all the features *that we need* (if you include the plugin patch for s-vision and monit, which I'm currently evaluating and should be ready in days/weeks), and because of the way it is implemented (eg: very light and easy to understand/maintain), it is the best choice. Don, please do your work and evaluate properly OpenRC. Otherwise, step down and do not participate to the vote. Same goes for all tech ctte members please! On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:45 +0100, Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org>: > That, I can definitely agree with. Although it is a shame that OpenRC > chose a non-declarative format. Joss, please stop posting stupid remarks about OpenRC. You don't know it, and you don't seem to want to know it. That's the 2nd post in a week that shows it, this is enough. OpenRC does have a declarative format, it is just not mandatory and you can continue to use init scripts if you like. Here's an example (from my blog, implementing the startup for rsyslogd): http://thomas.goirand.fr/blog/?p=147 Note that the sheebang should be replaced by /sbin/openrc-run since runscript was renamed (because of clash with the program from minicom). If you don't call this declarative, then you aren't being honest. On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:19:45 +0100, Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org>: > Oh, really? > Then can you explain why > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945 > has not been marked as fixed? It is the view of the upstream maintainers that the corner case where this happens doesn't happen in real life, so that bug can be ignored. This has already been stated many times, and I'm sure you've heard about it. I thought we were not having the debate this way. It seems you love flame wars and can't help yourself. CAN YOU STOP NOW ??? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
