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

[drago01]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
> 14 great.
>
> 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.

Indeed, imo we should add them to the release criteria.