systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

[Steve Dickson]

On 07/11/2011 10:03 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> 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. 
No. The community rejected them because 
   * They were to evasive which made the code unmaintainable esp 
        WRT to security fixes.
   * You rejected the idea of put the code in a standalone library.
   * They were too Fedora specific
   * Code stability was also a concern 

Here is the thread:
  http://marc.info/?t=127950663200001&r=1&w=2

steved.