jspaleta at gmail.com
Wed Sep 14 00:34:54 UTC 2011
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Genes MailLists <lists at sapience.com> wrote:
> The kernel has undergone more updates than systemd ... all for very
> good reasons - making it better and solving problems. Sure the same
> would apply to systemd.
We also go to some lengths to make sure that there is a fall back kernel on
the system by making sure the update kernel is _installed_ in parallel with
the running kernel and not _updated_ in the rpm packaging sense. And
optionally you can configure your system to hold N older kernels (I have N=6
for testing purposes currently cuz I'm that sort of crazy)
If an update kernel causes a serious regression on your hardware, for
whatever reason, you'll still have your current kernel to fallback to.
I very much doubt our kernel maintainers would feel comfortable doing the
updates that they do if we didn't leave a fallback kernel on system as an
alternative entry in the grub boot menu. Sure its hidden by default and you
have to do a special action to get access to that boot menu, but its there
as a safety net.
We have no such fallback stance in place for the init system. I think that
is an important consideration that you have to factor in here. Do you want
to walk people through a recovery process where an init update failed for
some unexpected reason? I look forward to seeing everyone cheerleading for
a systemd update to be pushed to F15 to sign up for #fedora help hours to
deal with the unforeseen consequences of that advocacy. .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel