On 08/23/2010 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, August 23, 2010 16:21:44 Luca Barbato wrote:
>> I'd put openrc on freedesktop btw.
>
> we've sort of already settled into the places ... jumping to another place
> doesnt gain us much. current infrastructure also already enables all the
> Gentoo devs who wish to contribute (git/http/xml/bugzilla/etc...).
> -mike

I'd do like enlightenment does. People wandering around fdo will notice
and maybe help a bit. We want more acceptance and hopefully have other
users beside ourselves. (I'm sick of having stuff shoved down our throat
just because they are apparently standard)

lu

--

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

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 +0000, 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 ...)

> 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

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

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

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:30:20 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> 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.

Hi,

Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>:
> 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
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> 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.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>:
> > 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.

On 24/08/10 22:21, Joshua Saddler wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:18:56 +0200
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:



Hi,

Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>:


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.