On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:36:05 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? > > The question puzzles me. For one it is > * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system But systemd is an implementation of that as well; isn't it sufficient that only one implementation satisfies it to run GNOME 3.8, and that the others implementations are blocked until supported? > * it is the default init system in stage3 What if the default were systemd? It would be a whole different story. Nothing prohibits a systemd stage3 from being brought out as well; and when that happens, it isn't really a default but rather a choice... > * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want > to make/keep it a usable tool. Let's say that I were to develop a system with some other Gentoo devs; that doesn't mean we are able to make everything in the tree support that system, making it an usable tool for everything is unrealistic especially in a world where people will pursue alternatives and not collaborate. There's nothing bad about them doing that, we can't satisfy everyone; if we were, we wouldn't even have systemd in tree... > If we can't, then there is a regression. If I tried to make something support that system, but failed to, and the develpers fail as well; I see that as a failure and we decide to not support each other, unless resources become available to do so. An attempt to support, which follows by a decision to not support it; is not a regression, it's a design choice to move forward. > It doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. Making such a design choice isn't a fault. There is no need for blame. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
