On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration, >> well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing >> and sends the wrong signal. >> > > There is no one official supported configuration of Gentoo. Nobody > has to agree to make systemd an official supported configuration, > because OpenRC isn't an official supported configuration either. At > least, not in the way that the terms seems to be being used. There is > no policy that requires packages to run when OpenRC is the service > manager, and there is no policy that requires packages to supply an > OpenRC init.d script.
Every long lawyer like response make me re-check my sanity. The split of openrc was done by Roy in the past to be usable by other audiences, especially busybox and *bsd configurations. OpenRC is baselayout-1, just packaged in different way. Gentoo, well up to now, did have a policy that packages should support the baselayout which was single one, no alternatives where formally supported. The fact that OpenRC is now provided as own package (technical bit) could not have changed the policy of providing stable coherent solution for users. The fact that someone decided that init system may be virtual means nothing if the implications of users and developers were not been understood. Of course it matches the gnome and affiliated vendor agenda.... but for that do we break the entire tree and produce extra load for developers who maintain unrelated packages? Alon
