On 08/08/2013 05:23 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:56:16 +0200 > hasufell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gentoo supports systemd, fine. Still, OpenRC is our default >> implementation and I don't think something should be called stable _on >> gentoo_ that doesn't work with the system tools we have designed and >> advertise. > > Gentoo advertises choice [1]; if it advertises OpenRC, state where. > > [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml > "for just about any application or need" > > http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml > "as they see fit" > > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml#differences > "You have complete control over what packages are or aren't > installed. Gentoo provides you with numerous choices, so you can > install Gentoo to your own preferences, which is why Gentoo is > called a meta-distribution." > > None of these advertise OpenRC or that things do need to work with it.
Look into stage3. > >> Let me quote myself from another thread: >> >>> Maintaining a package in gentoo implies a few things for me: >>> We are able to support it properly which either means that we can >>> communicate with upstream or at least (if that fails) fix bugs on >>> our own. >> >> There is nothing "properly" about forcing a particular init system, > > That's just your opinion, it depends on how you define "properly"; I just defined it. Read my quote again. > not > all combination of choices are possible, incompatibility with packages > that can be replaced has never been a reason to not maintain a package. > If it is a reason that has been agreed on; then, please state where. I am only talking about stabilization here, maybe that wasn't clear enough? The virtual is in @system and the default pre-installed implementation is INCOMPATIBLE with gnome-3.8. Until that is solved (in what way I don't care), then it should not enter stable arch. On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. Gentoo does not > require the use of OpenRC any more than it requires the use of portage > as the package manager. So would you stabilize a package that works with paludis, but not with portage? Ouch. It should probably not be in the tree in the first place, but I that's not what I have in mind here. I generally expect packages to work with... now be surprised... BOTH init systems, although I don't like systemd. If it doesn't work with one, then it's a bug. Bugs block stabilization. It is a _REGRESSION_. Ask the arch team about the meaning of regression if unsure.
