On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> It's not a regression; actually, it's quite common to drop features >> that can no longer be supported. I don't see us blocking stabilization >> for other cases in the Portage tree where a feature has been dropped. > > It is a regression: If it doesn't work with OpenRC I can't use it (same > with portage), and thus it deserves a liberal dose of bugs and masking > if bugs don't get fixed on time.
Not supporting OpenRC is specified behavior, in this case. Bugs are by definition unspecified behavior. If it isn't a bug, it isn't a regression. In any case, the whole point of having a stable tree is to provide a service to users (including devs) who want to run a set of packages that have been tested by others. Gnome 3.x fits that bill, even if it doesn't work with OpenRC. Who benefits from keeping it unstable, let alone masking it? This isn't a project where we have to exterminate anything that offends our sense of aesthetics. If somebody does an emerge -puD world and sees systemd show up in the list, and doesn't realize what that means (or be willing to learn it the hard way), they probably should stick with Ubuntu. Gentoo has some packages that don't work with Openrc, or Portage, or FreeBSD, and likely even Linux. In the future it will probably have more of them. That's why we say that we're about choice. Would I like to see optional Openrc support in Gnome? Sure. Will I see it? Well, maybe someday if the FreeBSD folks or others put a lot of work into it. If somebody wants to maintain it they should be welcome to do so. However, somebody has to do the work. Rich
