systemd acceptance, packaging guidelines (was Re: systemd and changes)

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:33:50PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > This, however, is just packaging guidelines. From readng the thread,
> > there are many things that I think people would like covered with
> > systemd before they would feel comfortable with it. So, I'm going to
> > attempt to quantify what would need to be tested and verified. This
> > document focuses on backwards compatibility. THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY
> > VERBOSE. Comments, changes, etc. welcome.
> While I think this is a good idea I am concernced a bit that this makes
> me responsible for stuff I am not willing to take responsibility
> of. i.e. if something from this list is broken, but it isn't systemd's
> fault then this should not be a reason to drop systemd from F14. Also,
> some of this I am not really able or willing to test (iscsi...), so I
> don't want to be responsible to fix this.

This isn't personal. It's a list of requirements that indicate where we need
to be in order to ship systemd as the default in Fedora 14. It doesn't
matter whose "fault" it is -- if it doesn't work, we can't ship it broken.

If it's possible to fix some now-exposed underlying issue by backing out of
systemd, and release engineering / FESCO deterimines that that's the best
fix, it doesn't mean systemd is a failure. It means that Fedora wasn't ready
for it yet.

Obviously if the item in question fails both with systemd and upstart, it's
a different sort of blocker.

-- 
Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org>
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences