On Fri, 10.02.12 10:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger(a)gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:04:20PM +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > [... issues after upgrades ...]
>
> We fix them when we know about them.
>
> >c) Systemd doesn't seem to preserve existing activated services upon
> >update (I recall having to manually activate cron and rsyslog).
>
> Not preserving the enablement state of services when migrating from
> SysV was mandated by FPC+FESCo. systemd developers dislike the
> guideline just like you do.
>
AFAIK, this was mandated by systemd developers + FPC. FPC could not get the
cooperation it needed from systemd developers on how to preserve enablement
state the way they thought correct so chose the second best option as they saw
it (enablement state saved using systemd-sysv-convert). The alternative for
FPC would have been to not approve systemd guidelines which we didn't want
to do as that would have been blocking progress altogether.
This is one of those decisions that proves the saying "everyone hates
a compromise".
Too make this clear: I think the current approach of "services that are
upgraded are disabled" is actually a really bad choice, and something
like "upgraded services stay enabled, though if the user did
per-runlevel manipulations of them they might end up being activated in
slightly different cases" would have been a much better option. But
quite frankly, my interest in these kinds of politics is quite minimal,
so I just accepted what FPC decided and avoided any further
discussions. It's not a fight I want to pick.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.