On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 21:03:32 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) maintain the existing baselayout and don't change things at all.
Right, that's baselayout-1 > > 2) start a new package called fastlayout and do whatever you wanna do > with it. Be as innovative as you want to be with it. Change all the > stuff in it that you want to change. Get people to test it and work on > it with you. Right, that's baselayout-2. It can go in the tree package.masked with massive warnings in the ebuild "WILL BREAK FOR SYSTEM FOO!" for people to test. > I have learned from experience that you never want to start a project > and call it "something"-ng. To be fair, that was a knee-jerk reaction. I wanted a discussion about a new config style, not one about the merits of bash as that would turn into a predictable flamewar. You can count the relevant posts on one hand sadly. I've always seen this as baselayout-2. > People don't like change unless they can see the obvious > benefits of such change. And it is hard for people to see these > benefits when you are just in the planning stages. That's what we call > a catch-22. Again, people won't *have* to change. It's already been demonstrated that people can keep their array based configs if they so choose. Or are you saying that baselayout should never change? As to where the distros are going, well, there's upstart and others. Of course, none of them work with our init scripts and all of them force a posix shell afaik. So from that perspective, allowing posix init scripts is mirroring where others are going. Thanks Roy -- [email protected] mailing list
