Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Doug Goldstein wrote: All, This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available via the layman module openrc. I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very smooth transition. That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 As a follow up for everyone. Mike and I have completed openrc-0.2 and baselayout-2.0.0 ebuilds. They're in the tree and ready for consumption. They are currently masked while we wait for all arches to match ~arch of current baselayout. Tracker bug for this is #214957 [1]. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214957 -- Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
On Monday 24 March 2008 22:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote: we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ? It now supports per module per kernel version arguments. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Roy Marples wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008 22:03:48 Mike Frysinger wrote: we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ? It now supports per module per kernel version arguments. thanks ... ebuild now prefers that form: modules_mod_args_ver= -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear after the module name. /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters. This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc- ebuild was something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various /etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting it. expecting users to read and do it themselves is certainly a path to destruction for many. while i could have written it in shell, i just did it in awk. i hope you're just overstating things when you say months, because FIXED:INCVS. we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ? Currently OpenRC does not support per-version-per-module arguments. What is your proposed syntax? i'd assume logically extended based on existing behavior. Roy's done it now though. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Doug Goldstein wrote: It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and committed it to the tree this weekend. Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. Well, *somebody* had better get their act together and talk with me about the migration document. I don't care about the ebuild so much as I do about making sure there's a howto for the migration process. If baselayout-2 OpenRC are the future of Gentoo, then gosh darnit, we need to work together. That means people in the know need to communicate with me on the draft (that I've already sent to cardoe), regardless of any who's-ebuild-are-we-using-epenis-fights. :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Josh Saddler wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and committed it to the tree this weekend. Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. Well, *somebody* had better get their act together and talk with me about the migration document. I don't care about the ebuild so much as I do about making sure there's a howto for the migration process. If baselayout-2 OpenRC are the future of Gentoo, then gosh darnit, we need to work together. That means people in the know need to communicate with me on the draft (that I've already sent to cardoe), regardless of any who's-ebuild-are-we-using-epenis-fights. :) I was trying to work together with the docs guys, the GMN peoples, the release engineering people, and our arch teams. However, Mike The Decider Frysinger does not want to work with everyone and has chosen to do his own thing. It just sucked the fun right out of the project for me and made it disinteresting in a heart beat. I had the fun of trying his ebuild out on one of my machines this morning and it happily broke my stable amd64 install. I would give you information if I was in possession of any Mike has still yet to reply to anyone's attempts to contact him. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: All, This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available via the layman module openrc. I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very smooth transition. That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and committed it to the tree this weekend. Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. not sure why you're getting pissy. but let's put some things straight shall we. - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo. i changed things of course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style problems, and did some things wrongly. You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell style. And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ and removing important ewarn msgs to users? - i'd been poking openrc on my system long before this weekend. Great. And have you been working with the docs people or the arch teams and with the Gentoo/FreeBSD guys? Because some of your changes might work on your system, but not on other systems - only pinging people on irc does not constitute real effort. we have e-mail addresses too last i checked. Refresh your mail client because I did send you e-mail. And as far as I know, Roy did too. - the package is still p.masked and de-keyworded. nothing precludes you from working on it. or writing docs. or doing anything else you're talking about doing. - and no, i dont have a problem sticking masked/de-keyworded things in the tree. people test things then. -mike It's called teamwork, Mike. It also looks awful suspicious when we don't hear a peep out of you about OpenRC until 1 day before I was going to add it to the tree. What would have been so hard about sending a follow up e-mail to the thread I started about getting OpenRC in the tree saying Hey everyone, going to stick openrc- in the tree now with some changes I feel should be made. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: All, This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available via the layman module openrc. I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very smooth transition. That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and committed it to the tree this weekend. Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. not sure why you're getting pissy. but let's put some things straight shall we. - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo. i changed things of course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style problems, and did some things wrongly. - i'd been poking openrc on my system long before this weekend. - only pinging people on irc does not constitute real effort. we have e-mail addresses too last i checked. - the package is still p.masked and de-keyworded. nothing precludes you from working on it. or writing docs. or doing anything else you're talking about doing. - and no, i dont have a problem sticking masked/de-keyworded things in the tree. people test things then. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: Doug Goldstein wrote: All, This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available via the layman module openrc. I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very smooth transition. That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 It appears my migration plan was not good enough for Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he went ahead and wrote his own version of the OpenRC ebuild, differing from the one in the OpenRC layman repo, and committed it to the tree this weekend. Since my offer to work on the migration was not good enough for him, I'm backing out and allowing him to handle the whole migration himself since I haven't heard from him at all despite Roy (author of OpenRC) and my attempts to contact him for 2 weeks regarding a migration plan for OpenRC. All issues and comments can be directed to him. I guess working together and documenting everything before having it hit the tree was a bad plan and it had to be one-upped. not sure why you're getting pissy. but let's put some things straight shall we. - the ebuild in question was from the layman repo. i changed things of course because it didnt cover all upgrade pieces, had obvious style problems, and did some things wrongly. You mean it wasn't bash style and instead was functional POSIX shell style. that wasnt what i was referring to, but converting to the tree standard only makes sense for something going into the tree. And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ looks/tested correct to me breaks for anything with a module parameter -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ looks/tested correct to me breaks for anything with a module parameter last i looked module parameters were not allowed. but it's a good thing it's p.masked so we can fix it easily. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: And by all upgrade paths would that include adding the bad conversion of /etc/modules.autoload.d/ looks/tested correct to me breaks for anything with a module parameter last i looked module parameters were not allowed. but it's a good thing it's p.masked so we can fix it easily. -mike /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear after the module name. /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters. This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc- ebuild was something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various /etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting it. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear after the module name. /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters. This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc- ebuild was something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various /etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting it. expecting users to read and do it themselves is certainly a path to destruction for many. while i could have written it in shell, i just did it in awk. i hope you're just overstating things when you say months, because FIXED:INCVS. we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Monday 24 March 2008, Doug Goldstein wrote: /etc/modules.autoload.d has always allowed module parameters to appear after the module name. /etc/conf.d/modules has allowed a completely different syntax requiring variables based on the module name to be set with the module parameters. This is where Roy and I have been stuck as far as an automatic conversion process. The stuff you included in the openrc- ebuild was something I had sent to Roy months ago before I realized module parameters would be an issue. Looking at a swath of various /etc/modules.autoload.d/ files, I haven't come up with shell code that does the right thing everytime with all the files, which is why I've left it up to being a manual process for the user and simply documenting it. expecting users to read and do it themselves is certainly a path to destruction for many. while i could have written it in shell, i just did it in awk. i hope you're just overstating things when you say months, because FIXED:INCVS. we're going to need to extend the syntax anyways to allow for per-version-per-module arguments. unless openrc does that now ... Roy ? -mike Currently OpenRC does not support per-version-per-module arguments. What is your proposed syntax? -- Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Doug Goldstein wrote: All, This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available via the layman module openrc. I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. The installation handbooks won't be changed until openrc baselayout-2 are stabilized and shipped with the stage3 tarballs. The same goes for our existing documentation. Until the new baselayout openrc are stabilized, made the default, *and* the old stuff is marked deprecated, don't expect it to show up in our other documents alongside baselayout-1 content. The last thing I want is to fork our documentation code samples, and duplicate everything with if you're on baselayout2 and/or openrc, do this instead instructions. That type of thing is a maintenance and usability headache. It's all or nothing. There can be only one! I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote: I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun. I already provide documentation with commands in example config files and man pages that cover nearly every aspect on OpenRC and all it's commands. The nice thing about not being a Gentoo dev means I don't feel the urge to write a migration how to. However, here's a really good primer. 1) Install OpenRC 2) Review all updated files in /etc/conf.d/ and /etc/rc.conf [1] [2] 3) If using a volume such as LVM, you'll find an appropriate init script in /etc/init.d that you need to add to the boot runlevel. 4) Carry on as normal [3] Thanks Roy [1] The case of variable names has been changed from UPPER to lower. This is for a few reasons (removes confusion vs environment vars, looks nicer). However, *existing* UPPER case vars should still work. [2] Paludis users will need to ensure that the init scripts checkfs and checkroot are removed. I don't care whose bug this is, but neither side wants to fix it. [3] A reboot is currently needed as for some reason state data isn't migrated from baselayout-1. This is probably due to OpenRC being split from baselayout and the code is pretty much the same here. Maybe some plucky Gentoo ebuild dev can step up and fix it. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
Roy Marples wrote: On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote: I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun. I already provide documentation with commands in example config files and man pages that cover nearly every aspect on OpenRC and all it's commands. The nice thing about not being a Gentoo dev means I don't feel the urge to write a migration how to. However, here's a really good primer. 1) Install OpenRC 2) Review all updated files in /etc/conf.d/ and /etc/rc.conf [1] [2] 3) If using a volume such as LVM, you'll find an appropriate init script in /etc/init.d that you need to add to the boot runlevel. 4) Carry on as normal [3] Thanks Roy [1] The case of variable names has been changed from UPPER to lower. This is for a few reasons (removes confusion vs environment vars, looks nicer). However, *existing* UPPER case vars should still work. [2] Paludis users will need to ensure that the init scripts checkfs and checkroot are removed. I don't care whose bug this is, but neither side wants to fix it. [3] A reboot is currently needed as for some reason state data isn't migrated from baselayout-1. This is probably due to OpenRC being split from baselayout and the code is pretty much the same here. Maybe some plucky Gentoo ebuild dev can step up and fix it. You missed the whole /etc/modules.autoload.d/* - /etc/conf.d/modules but I already discussed that with Josh for the guide. ;) -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
2008/3/20, Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Roy Marples wrote: On Thursday 20 March 2008 06:59:24 Josh Saddler wrote: I'll be working on the migration guide with Cardoe (and possibly Roy, if we can tag-team him into submission). As much of a pain as migration will be, we'll definitely need a howto. Fun, fun. I already provide documentation with commands in example config files and man pages that cover nearly every aspect on OpenRC and all it's commands. The nice thing about not being a Gentoo dev means I don't feel the urge to write a migration how to. However, here's a really good primer. 1) Install OpenRC 2) Review all updated files in /etc/conf.d/ and /etc/rc.conf [1] [2] 3) If using a volume such as LVM, you'll find an appropriate init script in /etc/init.d that you need to add to the boot runlevel. 4) Carry on as normal [3] Thanks Roy [1] The case of variable names has been changed from UPPER to lower. This is for a few reasons (removes confusion vs environment vars, looks nicer). However, *existing* UPPER case vars should still work. [2] Paludis users will need to ensure that the init scripts checkfs and checkroot are removed. I don't care whose bug this is, but neither side wants to fix it. [3] A reboot is currently needed as for some reason state data isn't migrated from baselayout-1. This is probably due to OpenRC being split from baselayout and the code is pretty much the same here. Maybe some plucky Gentoo ebuild dev can step up and fix it. You missed the whole /etc/modules.autoload.d/* - /etc/conf.d/modules but I already discussed that with Josh for the guide. ;) -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list Maybe the XSESSION variable disappearing from /etc/rc.conf and the changed settings in /etc/conf.d/clock are worth consideration too! Regards, Daniel -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] OpenRC baselayout-2 meets Gentoo
All, This is a formal notice to everyone that OpenRC will be hitting the Gentoo tree sooner rather then later. I would like to see *ALL* arch teams give the current code a whirl on their systems, which is available via the layman module openrc. I would also like to give the docs team a chance to weigh in here and work with me on a migration guide as well as any necessary updates. That being said, I will be the primary point of contact on the transition to OpenRC appearing in ~arch (along with it's associated baselayout-2.0.0 ebuild). Any and all grievances, concerns, suggestions and comments can and should be routed to me via the associated Bugzilla entries or e-mail. I do not want OpenRC to come as a surprise to anyone and break their system. I expect we will leave no stone unturned and go for a very smooth transition. That being said, the bug for the addition of OpenRC is #212696 [1]. The bug for the documentation is #213988 [2]. Lastly, I will be out of town March 21st through March 23rd. I will not have IRC access but I will have e-mail and Bugzilla access. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212696 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988 -- Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
