On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300 > Alon Bar-Lev <alo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than >> openrc (baselayout). > > Was there the decision to only support a single layout on Gentoo? Where? >
You kids don't remember the past ;) We had lots of people experimenting with non-baselayout/OpenRC solutions, but our support stance was always "You deviate from that, you're on your own" - einit, monit, s6 etc. have always been options, but never supported. >> There is *HUGE* difference between optional components and core >> components. > > Neither OpenRC or systemd is selected in @system; both are optional, > which one comes as default depends on how you obtain Gentoo. While > there's only a stage3 for OpenRC that does not exclude the possibility > that a stage3 for systemd may be made in the near future. Let me put it into simple words: Do not break my boot path. Again. I'm slowly reaching a zero-tolerance stance on regressions that make booting unreliable or broken, and just replacing OpenRC is about the worst way to trigger unexpected behaviour. > [snip] > Same for you, is your agenda to keep OpenRC and block any alternatives? I tolerate alternatives, but don't actively support them. > Our agenda is to keep Gentoo what Gentoo is defined as, follow its > philosophy and therefore do whatever is needed to provide our users a > choice to use Gnome 3.8 in a stable manner. ... while still providing reasonable support and stability > I don't see what all this has to do with an agenda of switching to > systemd, nobody is keeping you or anybody else from implementing or > porting support for OpenRC into GNOME 3.8; even if this were an agenda, > it would have been a very inefficient way to switch people to systemd. You say that as if we cared for Gnome. [snip] > There are a lot of Gentoo developers supporting it. Flashback to 2006... so it is true, the wheel keeps turning ...
