systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

[Steve Dickson]

On 07/11/2011 12:15 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 11.07.11 12:02, Steve Dickson (SteveD at redhat.com) wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
> 
> Nope, you did. In a personal mail on Wed 11 Aug 2010.
> 
> But really, this is a pointless game...
>  
>>    * They were to evasive which made the code unmaintainable esp 
>>         WRT to security fixes.
> 
> Uh? It's an addition of 30 lines of very simple code. In fact if it had
> been merged it probably would have been the simplest code in all of the
> NFS stack.
> 
>>    * They were too Fedora specific
> 
> systemd is not a fedora-only project. It is available in a number of
> other distributions, in a number of them default, and will be the
> default in opensuse too, in the next release.
Good to know... I'll talk their NFS maintainer to see how 
they are handling the systemd conversation... What other 
distro are planing to use it?  

> 
>>    * Code stability was also a concern 
> 
> Really, for 30 lines of code? And where have these been expressed?
> 
> I take it if I update the patch and repost it this would not change your
> minds and would be rejected again?

The main problem, in which you chose to ignore in this reply, is:

>>    * You rejected the idea of put the code in a standalone library.

If you put your code in a standalone library making it much more
manageable went it comes to configuration issues, go a head 
and resubmit it...  You'll have a much better chance of acceptance...

steved.