systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

[Lennart Poettering]

On Mon, 11.07.11 10:57, Reindl Harald (h.reindl at thelounge.net) wrote:

> Am 11.07.2011 04:51, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
> 
> >> I truly truly truly hope so... but at the end of the day... I 
> >> simply can't allow a new, untested (in a business environment)
> >> package destabilize a technology that is used by a large number
> >> of our community...
> > 
> > If it's impossible to make NFS work sensibly with systemd then obviously 
> > we'd revert it. But I don't believe that that's the case, and nothing 
> > you've said in this thread has changed my mind there. It's clearly 
> > possible to get NFS working. The question is whether it's possible to do 
> > so in a way that matches your expectations of how users want NFS to 
> > behave, and that's not an issue that results in any destabalisation
> 
> my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that
> widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd
> BEFORE systemd replaced upstart

It's a bit of a chicken of egg problem.

I actually sent patches which cleaned up part of the NFS stuff to Steve
(for example, socket activation patches for rpcbind), but he declined to
apply them. With those patches at least some of the complexity would go
away, as rpcbind would simply be available, and started as soon as it is
needed, copying what MacOS has been doing in the area of NFS for a while.

If systemd isn't in, people won't wake up, it's that easy.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.