FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:49 AM
Thomas Goirand
 
Default choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)

On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I did start the initial Debian
> packaging work last night though.
>

Is this available in a Git somewhere?

Thomas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5028E9CE.5000509@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/5028E9CE.5000509@debian.org
 
Old 08-13-2012, 12:17 PM
Roger Leigh
 
Default choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:49:34PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 03:44 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > I did start the initial Debian
> > packaging work last night though.
>
> Is this available in a Git somewhere?

It's here:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/openrc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/debian

It's on collab-maint, so anyone can contribute to it.

Benda Xu's patches are at
http://git.heroxbd.z.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn/openrc.git


Regards,
Roger

--
.'`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' schroot and sbuild http://alioth.debian.org/projects/buildd-tools
`- GPG Public Key F33D 281D 470A B443 6756 147C 07B3 C8BC 4083 E800


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120813121756.GR25141@codelibre.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120813121756.GR25141@codelibre.net
 
Old 08-13-2012, 04:49 PM
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
 
Default choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Just to bring this back on topic, if the initial tests of OpenRC
> show it to be viable and that it's possible to upgrade seamlessly
> from sysv-rc, then I would propose to drop sysv-rc entirely, rather
> than having a choice here. OpenRC would be a replacement rather
> than an alternative--I don't see much value in spending the effort
> on maintaining two here, since OpenRC is a much more capable system.
> Of course, this is quite a long way off--I've not personally booted a
> Debian system with OpenRC yet. I did start the initial Debian
> packaging work last night though.

Looks like a good plan to me.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120813164908.GB3211@khazad-dum.debian.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120813164908.GB3211@khazad-dum.debian.net
 
Old 09-02-2012, 02:42 AM
Wookey
 
Default choice in core infrastructure decisions ( Bug#684396: ITP: openrc -- alternative boot mechanism)

+++ Faidon Liambotis [2012-08-11 03:48 +0300]:
> On 08/11/12 01:12, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > There are choices that we don't support because the process of supporting
> > that choice would involve far more work than benefit, and the final goal
> > is excellence, not choice for its own sake. For example, we don't allow
> > users to replace the system C library with a different one. That's
> > something that we *could* do, but the general consensus of the project is
> > that investing our effort in that is not the best way to produce
> > excellence.
>
> I kind of disagree with that. I don't think that the fact that we don't
> support multiple C libraries is the result of a "consensus decision".
>
> I think it's just because noone attempted to properly do that and prove
> it's viability and usefulness either to a portion of the userbase or the
> project as a whole.

Not wishing to get into the general argument, but just to clarify that
in fact this (enabling an alternative c-library) has been done in the
past, showing that it is technically possible.

The SLIND project
(http://wiki.network-crawler.de/index.php/SLIND_Siemens_Linux_Distribution)
rebuilt a reasonable subset of debian against uclibc. dpkg has had
support for uclibc-<arch> for some years. It's not actually
technically very difficult, although proper support would involve some
intrusive changes in some places. It would actually be useful to quite
a lot of people if a core subset of Debian was easily buildable for
use with uclibc and busybox, but so far this work has always been done
in forks and derivatives, and not pushed back in, which makes it very
hard to maintain. Deciding whether that was still relevant or worth
the effort would no doubt require another long thread :-)

Steve and Russ have it right. We strive for technical excellence and
the widest functional coverage that can sensibly be achieved in the
context of a binary distro and the available resources. The implies
plenty of choice, but not choice for its own sake.

Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120902024201.GZ27622@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk">htt p://lists.debian.org/20120902024201.GZ27622@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:26 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org