On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I agree with one section of your argument:
>  arguments which are just "I'm not used to this" are bad arguments.
>
> Many of the arguments presented in this  and other threads do not boil
> down to that. If you believe them to do so, Jeff, then you're presenting
> a straw man as I'm sure you're aware.

I disagree this thread specifically boils down to familiarity
argument.  Shall I break down the original post point by point?
 
... snip ...
 
 - transparency of code due to shell use

how is shell more transparent?  from my meager understanding of
systemd we are actually getting better more systematic failure and
logging information from systemd unit files than we get from the
complexity of shell scripts. Are we not?

Up until now, my package is architecture independent.

From what I understand, I will now have to provide some systemd
application that is coded in C?
If that is the case, I now have to create an RPM per-architecture
and loose my architecture independence.

True or false?