[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Mike Frysinger posted on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:29:42 -0400 as excerpted: > On Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:02:15 Richard Freeman wrote: >> If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then >> why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it... > > people saw Roy moving on and got scared. That sums it up nicely, Vapier. Thanks. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Thursday, August 26, 2010 13:02:15 Richard Freeman wrote: > If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then > why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it... there is no debate. people saw Roy moving on and got scared. as i said originally, it makes no difference to us. we're moving to openrc and it will continue to be our default init system for the foreseeable future and the support channel is unchanged: go to bugs.gentoo.org. as for people who want to move to the latest shiny init, as i also said before, nothing is stopping them from getting it working today. we've had alternative init systems in the past that drop-in replace baselayout/openrc and there will continue to be ones in the future. however, until someone actually does the work to get one of the alternatives in the tree and actually working with other packages, there is no debate to be had as to the default init package. i'd also highlight that openrc focuses on one thing: it exists to boot the system and manage daemons via init scripts. it does not do all of the extended things that systemd is taking over (inetd, crond, udevd, etc...). -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 08/25/2010 08:29 PM, Duncan wrote: But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a point that's not being argued any more? I believe that's what Mike's WTFing about. It's not that you're wrong, you're not, it's that you're debating a question that's no longer being asked. See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098 and http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67098 The post I replied to cited upstream issues as a reason not to adopt OpenRC. My point is that upstream issues are not a distinguishing factor between OpenRC and baselayout-1. It isn't like I'm re-opening a thread from months ago. I'm replying directly to a point others have raised. If there is no debate about whether OpenRC should be adopting it, then why is it even being discussed in this way? Let's just do it... Rich
[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Richard Freeman posted on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:16:29 -0400 as excerpted: > And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not > bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues. Sure, we > can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not > abandon the work done so far, because doing so means living with > baselayout-1 for another few more years. AFAIK, you're arguing the (possible, but really never became more than a potential) debate of several months ago. As OpenRC was originally from Gentoo's baselayout, it's not a big problem to re-adopt it as upstream once again, certainly less of a problem at this late date than staying on baselayout-1 stable for another several years would be likely to be, given how legacy it is, and how close to stable it already is. The loss of external upstream was just one more hiccup of a number of them over the years, and isn't a big problem, especially when someone's already stepped for the job. Perhaps we'll eventually switch to something else, but having seen the pains openrc went thru, I'd certainly not want to jump on to upstart or the like at this point. Let the new round of candidates mature a bit, and then do an evaluation. Meanwhile, what few bugs remain for openrc stabilization pale in comparison to the bugs and adaption issues we'd have moving to something else, and baselayout-1 really /is/ anachronistic and not a particularly viable option at this point, so for the medium term, openrc remains the only really viable option. But that was pretty much decided some time ago, based on my following of the relevant discussions here and elsewhere, so why are you arguing a point that's not being argued any more? I believe that's what Mike's WTFing about. It's not that you're wrong, you're not, it's that you're debating a question that's no longer being asked. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 08/25/2010 03:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote: On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote: If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never had an upstream, and never will have one. wtf are you talking about ? Gentoo was always been the upstream of it. Uh, that was essentially my point... :) Clearly upstream support is not an issue that distinguishes openrc from baselayout-1. Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it? it's already cleaned up. this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1 and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase. And my point was essentially that we should finish doing that, and not bag the whole project because of the OpenRC upstream issues. Sure, we can think about the next great thing that is coming along, but let's not abandon the work done so far, because doing so means living with baselayout-1 for another few more years. I was just being a bit subtle in my argument... Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:37:34 Richard Freeman wrote: > On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote: > > If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, > > the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. > > Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future > development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never > had an upstream, and never will have one. wtf are you talking about ? Gentoo was always been the upstream of it. > It seems like the debate is around openrc vs systemd or whatever. I > think the debate we need to settle first is openrc vs baselayout-1. > Otherwise we're going to end up maintaining TWO different legacy init.d > systems while we spend the next few years aiming for yet another target. no clue what you're talking about. Gentoo wrote baselayout from scratch, and then rewrote baselayout-2 from scratch in C to address some fundamental issues at the time. then Roy stepped up to do a lot of the work and when he decided to part ways from Gentoo over POSIX shell/ebuild issues, but wanted to keep working on baselayout-2, we allowed him to do this. so he renamed the core bits to openrc and moved the development off of Gentoo infra. > Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even > if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it? it's already cleaned up. this is the "squash regressions from baselayout-1 and make sure all stable packages are happy with it" phase. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 08/24/2010 11:57 PM, Nathan Zachary wrote: If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. Is the future development of OpenRC more problematic than the future development of baselayout-1? As far as I can tell, baselayout-1 never had an upstream, and never will have one. It seems like the debate is around openrc vs systemd or whatever. I think the debate we need to settle first is openrc vs baselayout-1. Otherwise we're going to end up maintaining TWO different legacy init.d systems while we spend the next few years aiming for yet another target. Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up openrc and get it deployed, even if in the long-term we decide to get rid of it? Alternatively, we drop support for openrc entirely, and tell everybody running ~arch to move to our next target or back to baselayout-1. I don't think we want to have three targets to maintain. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:57:46 -0500 Nathan Zachary wrote: > I don't think that the documentation changes should be a determining > factor in switching to OpenRC. If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, > the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. > The documentation can be updated in due time. Of course, that's just my > opinion. It's not really a determining factor in whether or not we adopt it as our default system. It's just one of the big tasks to complete if we do. I'm not arguing against using OpenRC just because the docs will require significant rewrites. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 24/08/10 22:21, Joshua Saddler wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200 Christian Faulhammer wrote: Hi, Joshua Saddler: The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc files. Is there a list of the needed changes? Read the OpenRC guide, then read all our other guides. That's the list. It will require a line-by-line code scan to figure all this stuff out. Creating such a list would probably take almost as long as actually fixing the docs. I don't think that the documentation changes should be a determining factor in switching to OpenRC. If we are going to endorse using OpenRC, the more relevant issues are the ones regarding its future development. The documentation can be updated in due time. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200 Christian Faulhammer wrote: > Hi, > > Joshua Saddler : > > The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked > > stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc > > files. > > Is there a list of the needed changes? Read the OpenRC guide, then read all our other guides. That's the list. It will require a line-by-line code scan to figure all this stuff out. Creating such a list would probably take almost as long as actually fixing the docs. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Mike Frysinger said: > On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 08:57:45 Thilo Bangert wrote: > > > , efficient, known-good solution > > > that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new > > > thingy that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug > > > etc. etc.? I just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from > > > saying "OMG HAZ NEW FEATRUES" :) > > > > one feature of systemd is, that it has an active upstream. > > ... and so does openrc presumably you are referring to this: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/openrc/ ? Thats great news. Thanks. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Hi, Joshua Saddler : > The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked > stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc > files. Is there a list of the needed changes? V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/> signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:30:20 -0400 Richard Freeman wrote: > Looking at the tracker bug, I see all of three issues blocking openrc > from going stable. One is documentation, > It seems like we should just make the next bugday "OpenRC Cleanup Day" > or something like that. Everybody can take 15 minutes to contribute to > a wiki on getting started with openrc, or blog about it, or whatever. > the docs team can glean the best of that and get the docs in order. Oh heck no. We're not about to wade through a hundred blog entries/wiki articles in a desparate attempt to assemble a coherent guide. Besides, Doug, Roy, and I wrote a migration guide a few years ago that I've been constantly updating: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml The big issue with the docs is that IF OpenRC/baselayout-2 are marked stable, it will require massive changes to hundreds of our other doc files. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 08:57:45 Thilo Bangert wrote: > > , efficient, known-good solution > > that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy > > that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I > > just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW > > FEATRUES" :) > > one feature of systemd is, that it has an active upstream. ... and so does openrc > no, i dont think it would be a good idea to switch to systemd, just yet. > but like the original baselayout was breaking new ground back when it > first was developed, so is systemd. it does things differently and may not > have all features yet, but from the outset it appears to be vastly > superior to sysv-style inits, upstart and openrc. nothing is stopping you or anyone else from making systemd work under Gentoo -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 08/24/2010 08:57 AM, Thilo Bangert wrote: given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-) Perhaps, but if we want to move in that direction perhaps we should consider at least getting openrc stable first. That doesn't mean making it perfect, or feature-complete. However, right now we have two different baselayouts, and if we start talking about systemd then we'll have three. Do we really want to start on seriously supporting a third one, without first getting rid of one of the other two? Alternatively we could dump openrc and move everybody back to baselayout-1, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Looking at the tracker bug, I see all of three issues blocking openrc from going stable. One is documentation, one is getting an evms upgrade stable on a few minor archs, and one is some kind of mdadm upgrade with a few issues. It seems like we should just make the next bugday "OpenRC Cleanup Day" or something like that. Everybody can take 15 minutes to contribute to a wiki on getting started with openrc, or blog about it, or whatever. the docs team can glean the best of that and get the docs in order. The evms/mdadm/arch maintainers could make a push to finish up, and others can help them with patches. If we made a real push to get OpenRC stable I'm sure that those bugs would get taken care of quickly. Right now I'm guessing that it just isn't on anybody's radar. Or, is the situation with OpenRC less stable than is apparent in the tracker? Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
> Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things > automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it > tends to be quite human-readable. > > ... why would I want to remove a > stable the biggest complaint about openrc is that its not in stable - go figure. > , efficient, known-good solution > that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy > that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I > just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW > FEATRUES" :) one feature of systemd is, that it has an active upstream. no, i dont think it would be a good idea to switch to systemd, just yet. but like the original baselayout was breaking new ground back when it first was developed, so is systemd. it does things differently and may not have all features yet, but from the outset it appears to be vastly superior to sysv-style inits, upstart and openrc. granted, systemd is currently able to attract enthusiastic supporters. reducing these to mere fanboys, however, is ignoring the technical solution that systemd proposes. yes, openrc works great - and yes, systemd is a better solution when looking at the overall problem. given how long, so far, it has taken openrc to reach stable, it is no wonder people start lobbying for systemd today. ;-) kind regards Thilo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 08/23/10 19:26, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit : >> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix] >>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate >>> where we want to go from there. >>> >> >> YES, let's get it stable. >> >> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less >> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great >> thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than >> basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros). >> At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't >> think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency >> based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for >> their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do). > > Other distributions are going one step further and are going for > shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. > That sounds like a really confused bad idea to me. At some point you will have to execute a program with a pre-setup environment and passing some arguments. You could, of course, hack that together manually. It tends to be quite a bit of work to get everything set up right and it's lots of code you'll have to maintain. Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it tends to be quite human-readable. ... why would I want to remove a stable, efficient, known-good solution that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW FEATRUES" :) (and OpenRC is by far the fastest init script manager I've seen. Performance is really not a good argument against it in this case ...)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 23/08/10 02:28 PM, Olivier Crête wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:09 +0100, Mike Auty wrote: >> On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote: >>> >>> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for >>> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. >>> >> Why? Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own >> parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for >> that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the >> initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the >> different-yet-again language that goes with it. Why not rely on a >> prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds? > > Systemd uses ini style files for configuration (and symlinks). So there > really isn't much of a parser in there. And obviously, they're going > through some bugfixing right now, so when F14/F15 are out there, we can > just take their complete solution ;) > What are you actual complaints about openrc? What is wrong with using shell for bootup, it works, it's fast (especially with openrc's ability to be executed with dash) and _extremely_ flexible.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:09 +0100, Mike Auty wrote: > On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote: > > > > Other distributions are going one step further and are going for > > shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. > > > > Why? Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own > parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for > that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the > initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the > different-yet-again language that goes with it. Why not rely on a > prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds? Systemd uses ini style files for configuration (and symlinks). So there really isn't much of a parser in there. And obviously, they're going through some bugfixing right now, so when F14/F15 are out there, we can just take their complete solution ;) -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/08/10 18:26, Olivier Crête wrote: > > Other distributions are going one step further and are going for > shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. > Why? Presumably they're doing it by writing programs that do their own parsing and executing, which means they'll need a maintainer just for that program and they'll have to go through a few iterations to get the initial bugs out, and then people will have to learn how to use the different-yet-again language that goes with it. Why not rely on a prebuilt parser that devs already have to know to look after ebuilds? I'm happy to accept that there might be some very good reasons (respawning a shell for each script is time consuming/expensive?), but without describing what those reasons are, it's not a direction we should just be following blindly... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkxyuXMACgkQu7rWomwgFXrqSwCgjANV5zpo/uYrML+q1mCXHVgI ghcAn2oRJMUl4V+L4UHhEABYUs58e9c5 =jen/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit : > [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix] > > So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate > > where we want to go from there. > > > > YES, let's get it stable. > > However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less > POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great > thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than > basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros). > At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't > think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency > based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for > their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do). Other distributions are going one step further and are going for shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Monday, August 23, 2010 11:05:45 Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less > POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. no one was talking about doing anything of the sort -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/23/2010 10:05 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit : > [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix] >> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate >> where we want to go from there. >> > > YES, let's get it stable. > > However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less > POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great > thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than > basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros). > At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't > think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency > based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for > their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do). > There are still some bugs we are working on fixing. Once we are ready for it to move stable we will. Anyone that is wanting to help get things moving a bit faster can always join #gentoo-base and provide patches and help resolve known issues. - -- == Jory A. Pratt anarchy -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Mozilla Lead GPG: 2C1D 6AF9 F35D 5122 0E8F 9123 C270 3B43 5674 6127 == -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxykOIACgkQwnA7Q1Z0YSeN3wCfYQjJ9CJzvQqncQvUMqqwwBax cAQAn2ojNSggCJk6uf4LG4l7uojP6uoL =l1Re -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +, Duncan a écrit : [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix] > So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate > where we want to go from there. > YES, let's get it stable. However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros). At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do). -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/04/10 23:32, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman wrote: >> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: >>> >>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am >>> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to >>> continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please >>> feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting >>> openrc back on track. >>> >> >> Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support. >> However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on something >> that is more cross-platform if possible. >> >> I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of migration for >> users), only to then move to something else anyway. Why have two migrations >> when you can just have one? >> > > The reason why people want to do an openrc migration right now is > because we don't know when we'll find something else to move to; make > it work with gentoo, make it work for everyone, iron out all the bugs, > and push it to stable. In all probability, and looking at our past > experience with pushing openrc to stable, it *will* take years. It's > too much work to maintain both baselayout-1 *and* openrc *and* find > something else to move to. It's best to move to openrc (which has > numerous benefits over baselayout-1, and has a maintainer now), and > then see what we can do. > That's true, but there's also the fact that openrc has merits which make it an attractive choice --- it is not just that we're stuck with it. We've all used other init systems. I like openrc best. Its excellent for servers and compatible with all the goodies people want on desktops. It is one of the features that attracted me to Gentoo. I'm going to be helping Jory and Patrick with this one. If people feel strongly that we need another init system, it would be interesting to have Gentoo compatible with others (although this sounds like quagmire). However, I wouldn't want to see openrc go. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwx2AUACgkQl5yvQNBFVTWmrwCbBdgx7H0KF9ugoO7Rwe9yOJTW 2TwAnRDnABYPAUyT2cH0i4rsyPQ8MsiY =+yG6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Nirbheek Chauhan posted on Mon, 05 Jul 2010 09:02:19 +0530 as excerpted: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman > wrote: >> On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: >>> >>> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am >>> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to >>> continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please >>> feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting >>> openrc back on track. Very cool. =:^) If you/we're moving OpenRC development back in-house, a couple of the problems with OpenRC as it was, pretty much cease to exist any more. The problems with OpenRC first trace back to, from what I can see, a disagreement some years ago, now -- which also played a non-minor role in Roy leaving Gentoo, as well. Roy's idea was to take Gentoo toward POSIX shell compatibility, both init-system-wise and package-system-wise. Over- all, that went over like a lead balloon, a number of devs (including several core toolchain, etc, devs, and council members) /liked/ the bash extensions Gentoo relies on, and our package system remains solidly bash dependent today, both by policy and in practice. But Roy was the baselayout (then including what's now openrc as well) maintainer, and he went ahead with his plans there, splitting baselayout into the Gentoo specific baselayout, and the init system itself, which was intended to be POSIX shell compliant and distribution and *nix system independent, as well as implementing core parts of it as native executables, thus speeding it up dramatically from the formerly almost entirely shell scripted implementation. In large part (at least from the view from here as a user of the new system) it was due to the goals of POSIX shell compatibility and distribution agnosticism that delayed and drew out OpenRC development and stabilization so much, the reason why every time it seemed about ready to go stable, along would come new versions with dramatic changes, dropping more bashisms/gentooisms, or fixing bugs in the implementation triggered by the last round of drops. Had the only or primary goal been simply the split and the switch to the native code core, many of the changes, for instance to the network subsystem, wouldn't have been necessary, and the more parallel reliable and faster native code system would have been able to stabilize far sooner. But it would seem that whatever other distributions or BSDs he had hoped to get using OpenRC went with something else, instead, and as Gentoo has continued down the GNU/bash based system route, his interests and those of Gentoo have continued to diverge as well, so the OpenRC project has apparently become a dead-end as far as his interest is concerned, and he's abandoning it. Too bad for what could have been for OpenRC, but bringing it back in-house does solve the two biggest problems Gentoo was having with it, all the unnecessary (from a Gentoo perspective) changes removing bashisms and gentooisms, and the fast rate of incompatible change, leaving Gentoo without a practical base for stabilizing anything. >> Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support. >> However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on >> something that is more cross-platform if possible. >> >> I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of >> migration for users), only to then move to something else anyway. Why >> have two migrations when you can just have one? >> > The reason why people want to do an openrc migration right now is > because we don't know when we'll find something else to move to; make it > work with gentoo, make it work for everyone, iron out all the bugs, and > push it to stable. In all probability, and looking at our past > experience with pushing openrc to stable, it *will* take years. It's too > much work to maintain both baselayout-1 *and* openrc *and* find > something else to move to. It's best to move to openrc (which has > numerous benefits over baselayout-1, and has a maintainer now), and then > see what we can do. Well, given the above and assuming Gentoo could settle on a reasonably mature replacement within a reasonably short period (say 4-6 months), it's possible adopting and stabilizing that replacement wouldn't take the years and years that OpenRC has. Presumably, whatever we were to settle on would already know where it was going, and wouldn't be doing the change-horses-in-mid-stream thing that OpenRC was pulling, killing the bashims, etc, at the same time. But those are some big assumptions. I've gotten the impression that the projects making the big waves aren't all that mature, and while they hopefully aren't changing horses in mid-stream like OpenRC was doing, so the development shouldn't be as painful in that regard, they still have some serious growing to do before they're to the point where OpenRC is, today
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Richard Freeman wrote: > On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: >> >> For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am >> gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to >> continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please >> feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting >> openrc back on track. >> > > Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support. > However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on something > that is more cross-platform if possible. > > I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of migration for > users), only to then move to something else anyway. Why have two migrations > when you can just have one? > The reason why people want to do an openrc migration right now is because we don't know when we'll find something else to move to; make it work with gentoo, make it work for everyone, iron out all the bugs, and push it to stable. In all probability, and looking at our past experience with pushing openrc to stable, it *will* take years. It's too much work to maintain both baselayout-1 *and* openrc *and* find something else to move to. It's best to move to openrc (which has numerous benefits over baselayout-1, and has a maintainer now), and then see what we can do. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 07/04/2010 04:09 PM, Jory A. Pratt wrote: For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting openrc back on track. Well, openrc isn't any worse than baselayout-1 for upstream support. However, I do agree that we should strongly try to standardize on something that is more cross-platform if possible. I'd rather not push to make openrc stable (which means lots of migration for users), only to then move to something else anyway. Why have two migrations when you can just have one? If Gentoo just wants to own openrc and not use something else long-term, then by all means let's get it done. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/04/2010 02:39 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200 > Fabio Erculiani wrote: > >> How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there >> that are using OpenRC then? >> OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I >> am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least. >> I'm already spread over several things but I could give a hand to >> other devs willing to take over. > > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_21f716d5ffa6f04520e39d12fbe43452.xml > >> The only reason why OpenRC has not come up for stabilization by it's >> maintainers is the fact that everytime there's a new version readied >> for release, on the horizon there's new incompatible changes being >> planned for the next version. The OpenRC maintainers in Gentoo have >> always chosen to wait until OpenRC settles down a little bit. Now with >> the plan to drop support for certain features (ADSL and PPP support in >> the networking code), it's going to rewrite more Gentoo people to step >> up to develop and maintain this code. > > > I would say it's settled down now. > > I don't think stable can wait another 2-3 years on baselayout-1 while we > switch to yet another rc system. > > For those of you not on the #gentoo-dev channel, I just announced I am gonna be looking at the openrc code and fixing the bugs and working to continue the development. Anyone that is interested in helping please feel free to contact me off list to discuss how we will handle getting openrc back on track. - -- == Jory A. Pratt anarchy -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Mozilla Lead GPG: 2C1D 6AF9 F35D 5122 0E8F 9123 C270 3B43 5674 6127 == -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkww6okACgkQwnA7Q1Z0YSdhmQCgkKbxZtEX+xZ5EctZYMJ3gegR w30AnidMZVVlTY6OLJ2/vR8dr9wQ/lRD =F1WI -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 17:17:25 +0200 Fabio Erculiani wrote: > How are we supposed to handle the amount of installations out there > that are using OpenRC then? > OpenRC/bl-2 have proven to be a big improvement over the old stuff. I > am for fixing current bugs, and keep it maintenance mode at least. > I'm already spread over several things but I could give a hand to > other devs willing to take over. http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_21f716d5ffa6f04520e39d12fbe43452.xml > The only reason why OpenRC has not come up for stabilization by it's > maintainers is the fact that everytime there's a new version readied > for release, on the horizon there's new incompatible changes being > planned for the next version. The OpenRC maintainers in Gentoo have > always chosen to wait until OpenRC settles down a little bit. Now with > the plan to drop support for certain features (ADSL and PPP support in > the networking code), it's going to rewrite more Gentoo people to step > up to develop and maintain this code. I would say it's settled down now. I don't think stable can wait another 2-3 years on baselayout-1 while we switch to yet another rc system. -- fonts, gcc-porting, and it's all by design toolchain, wxwidgetsto keep us from losing our minds @ gentoo.orgEFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
Nikos Chantziaras schrieb: > On 07/04/2010 05:29 PM, Lars Wendler wrote: >> now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? > How about switching to something that has a very active upstream? > http://bugs.gentoo.org/150190 I just want to throw in systemd: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=318365 http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
[gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo
On 07/04/2010 05:29 PM, Lars Wendler wrote: Hi list, now that openrc has no active upstram anymore [1] what shall we do? To be honest I was really looking forward for openrc/baselayout-2 finally becoming stable in Gentoo but this seems to be quite implausible now that openrc has no upstream anymore. If there's anyone out there who would volunteer to maintain openrc, please step up now or else I fear we must abandon openrc which would be very sad. How about switching to something that has a very active upstream? http://bugs.gentoo.org/150190
