Distribs switched to xorg (gentoo) [LWN.net]

Distribs switched to xorg (gentoo)

Posted Jun 29, 2004 7:50 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647)
In reply to: A look at Slackware 10.0 by evgeny
Parent article: A look at Slackware 10.0

I'm using Gentoo for AMD64 as well, and yes, it defaults to xorg.
However, the first /release/ based on it will be 2004.2, which will come
out shortly. (Gentoo's release system is 0-based quarterly, so 2004.2
comes out in the third quarter of 2004.)

Of course, once Gentoo is actually installed, the liveCD release snapshot
versions mean little, as the distribution is designed and intended to be
upgraded more or less constantly, rather than in version fits and starts,
as with most other distribs, so /release/ /snapshots/ doesn't mean much
other than it's what the installer of a specific stage/liveCD release
installs by default, based on the snapshot of the distribution for that
arch when it was taken, if the user chooses to install it.

Also, AMD64 was the first Gentoo arch to default to xorg, with Sparc and
some of the other minor archs following fairly quickly. x86-32, however,
hasn't yet switched, and probably won't until after 2004.2, so for the
2004.3 quarterly snapshot release. The reason is because the standard
font dir location changes, and they don't want to go stable with xorg, and
catch people unaware. However, there's little additional work going into
X(un)Free86 in Gentoo, and pretty much everyone not sticking to strictly
stable on x86-32 has already migrated or is in the process of doing so,
AFAIK from the user and devel lists.

..

BTW & FWIW, Gentoo uses a requires/depends type init setup as well.

Duncan

(Log in to post comments)

Distribs switched to xorg (gentoo)

Posted Jun 29, 2004 8:51 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

As well as LSB 1.3

http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.3.0/gLSB/gLSB/initscrcomconv.html

Is there any distro outside UnitedLinux that implements this?

Distribs switched to xorg (gentoo)

Posted Jul 1, 2004 4:54 UTC (Thu) by set (guest, #4788) [Link]

Probably a reference to Net/FreeBSD's init system, which is similar,
but not the same.

Requires/depends init scripts vs "BSD-style" vs "Sys-V style"

Posted Jul 1, 2004 8:18 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

>> BTW & FWIW, Gentoo uses a requires/depends
>> type init setup as well.

> As well as _what_?

You didn't read the comment threads to well, did you? I was referring to
the thread entitled '"BSD-style" init scripts,', started by "Donio". The
comment was made (the truth of which I don't know, as I prefer
contributing where improvements to my code get likewise contributed, thus,
Linux, not BSD) that even most BSDs no longer use "BSD-style" init
scripts, but rather requires/depends type scripts.

I was simply stating that rather than the traditional Sys-V style init
scripts most distribs use, Gentoo also uses requires/depends style init
scripts.

Just as the Gentoo ports system came from the BSDs, so, I believe, did the
requires/depends, tho I'm not sure of it.

Duncan

Requires/depends init scripts vs "BSD-style" vs "Sys-V style"

Posted Jul 1, 2004 8:30 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link]

>>> BTW & FWIW, Gentoo uses a requires/depends
>>> type init setup as well.

>> As well as _what_?

> You didn't read the comment threads to well, did you? I was referring to
> the thread entitled '"BSD-style" init scripts,', started by "Donio".

So why didn't you reply to _that_ thread?! If you're referring to _another_ thread, make this clear. Don't assume everyone else has as perverted logic in understanding what you're talking about. Your comment was off topic both of the current thread and the original article (which focused on Slackware, not current *BSD).