Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Jeu 20 décembre 2012 02:54, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:56:36PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Yuck! I really don't see why we should be granting this type of
>> exceptions.
>> libexec and share exist for a reason. Helper binaries need to be in
>> libexec,
>> unit files in share, I think allowing systemd to dump everything (and in
>> particular 64-bit stuff) to lib is setting a horrible precedent.
>
> Unit files need to be in /, so moving them would either require creating
> a /share for distributions that haven't merged /usr or putting up with
> inconsistent naming between distributions.


systemd people spearheaded the /usr merge
Their main argument was cleaning up the filesystem layout!
And now they've inconvenienced everyone else, they want to avoid the
cleaning up consequences their side???
What is the logic here?

I could understand postponing cleaning up for F19, but systemd really need
to eat its own dogfood and lead by example. We've merged /usr now. /usr
merge cost was supposed to be offset by cleanups wins. If we refuse to do
the cleanups and keep all the historic warts because some other
distributions haven't merged, why the heck did we accept the /usr merge
burden in the first place?

This is design by committee where all the bad options are chosen
simultaneously to avoid annoying anyone. Can we stick to the single evil
we've already chosen instead please?

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot