systemd acceptance, packaging guidelines (was Re: systemd and changes)
mclasen at redhat.com
Wed Aug 25 13:27:50 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > I'm going to be blunt. I DON'T CARE.
> Yay, thanks that you don't care. You are aware that by putting
> everything on a single man's shoulders and then telling him "you don't
> care" you make him feel really welcome and make him wonder why he
> even bothers with this shit?
> > Sure, I suppose individual maintainers want to push their code over the wall and
> > then sit in their silo and claim 'that's not my problem' and 'someone else
> > needs to fix that', well, that's their right to be lame. But we, as Fedora,
> > as producers of a product that we ship to our users, don't have that luxury.
> But you enable them to block out change. For example, if somebody
> refuses to merge a patch that adds a systemd equivalent for an upstart
> config hook he has, he can sink the whole systemd in fedora project. I
> am pretty sure some folks would be really happy to have that power...
Hey, lets not get carried away here. It is pretty clear that Bills list
of checkpoints for init / boot functionality covered not just systemd,
but plymouth, gdm, initscripts, kernel, dracut, and a bunch of other
early userspace packages. I'm sure the maintainers of those packages
will be willing to help with making the init / boot experience of Fedora
To my knowledge, this is the first time we've ever looked at codifying
what behaviours we expect in this area (why didn't we do this exercise
for upstart ?). It is very useful, and if nothing else, this is already
a very useful outcome of the systemd adventure.
More information about the devel