Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations? (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8)

On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:57:37 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo going forward. > > > > We need to come up with a solution similar to the above to avoid > > this... > > This is called a 'profile'. > > You can have systemd and openrc profiles, and then ab

Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations? (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8)

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > This is called a 'profile'. > > You can have systemd and openrc profiles, and then able to mask > specific packages... > > It is a technical solution, but won't make lives much easier in this regard. ++ I don't think that this is really susta

Re: Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations? (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8)

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, 20:57:18 +0300 > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >> If from now on, a bug with systemd of new version of a package blocks >> that package stabilization, it means that all developers must support >> systemd. So having systemd stable is

Multiple implementations shouldn't block Gentoo's progress. Stabilize package combinations? (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8)

On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, 20:57:18 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > If from now on, a bug with systemd of new version of a package blocks > that package stabilization, it means that all developers must support > systemd. So having systemd stable is a decision that should be made by > the entire community, a