On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 09/08/13 15:36, hasufell wrote: >> >> On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd >>>>> and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. >>>> >>>> >>>> We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been >>>> dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a >>>> _regression_. >>> >>> >>> How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? >> >> >> The question puzzles me. For one it is >> * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system >> * it is the default init system in stage3 >> * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want to >> make/keep it a usable tool. If we can't, then there is a regression. It >> doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. > > > baselayout-1, then later baselayout-2 and OpenRC were all created because > there was an need and no suitable ready solutions > systemd however is starting to look like a viable ready solution to switch > to > it's definately not an regression to switch to actively maintained software, > it's more of an improvement because OpenRC has been stalled ever since Roy > stopped hacking on it (all work put in by vapier, WilliamH, and others is of > course appericiated) > you know it's true if you have been with gentoo enough long >
At least we know what ssuominen thinks... some prople are trying to hijack the Gentoo project at the excuse of Gnome to switch into specific vendor solution, and be on its mercies from now on. This was the exact plan of whoever put all these $$ in udev/systemd/gnome/fedora and effect the entire ecosystem, and slowly own the entire solutions. As Linux userland become more and more monolithic per the plan of that vendor, and if we yield, there will be no real difference between Fedora and Gentoo, so what have we accomplished? There come the new Microsoft and conquered the free open source world using $$ and ambassadors. What we basically say is that Gentoo cannot have their own agenda and now submit to dictation of a single vendor of how Linux should be managed and run. To provide good service to our users we need a clear stand, what will developers (throughout the tree) will be maintaining. If a user installs a component he does expect it to work and maintained. And we cannot force all developers to support two different layouts, and we cannot allow developers to support layout of their choice, as users will get a totally broken solution, because of the aspirations of developer/herd they get different level of support. I don't care if systemd is worked on by people, however it must be clearly mark as unstable as long as there is no decision to switch. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev
