[HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> I will forego the bikeshedding and say it should be sysconfig or
> syssetup but I do believe it will cause a lot of complaints.

sys-armyknife
system-get-me-a-beer

More seriously systemctl  has been bantered around on this list
already and naively I would have thought it would encompass some of
the functionality being talked about that systemd-install does.

I have concerns about the split in functionality and the cohesiveness
of command naming scheming, but I don't think we are going to find an
optimal solution. I certainly don't know enough about all the
functionality to make any concrete suggestions. Though I would like to
see someone who does know more than me think set up some strawman use
cases that represent common usage scenarios and try to think through
the functionality split in a way that minimizes the number of
different commands needed for the common case.  That'd probably help
all of us get a feel for the normal level of complexity here.

I think part of the subconscious red flags that are going off is an
inherent trend towards flexibility==complexity. I think everyone sees
there's enhanced flexibility here. The question is can we dice it up
in such a way that it doesn't show up as unnecessary complexity. A
packager workflow case would be interesting to see. A local sysadmin
usage scenario would be interesting to see talked through.

I think whatever we see shipped is going to end up being re-adjusted
after some real world usage. Obviously providing  service and
chkconfig tools which provide a subset of available functionality at
the cost of not being able to get access to the extra flexibility is
one part of the equation..sort of a comfort zone fallback.  But as
more people use and get confused by the new command structure, there
will undoubtly be some areas where functionality could be
repartitioned or expressed in a different manner.

-jef