/usrmove?

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 10.02.12 10:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at gmail.com) wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:04:20PM +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > On 02/10/2012 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > [... issues after upgrades ...]
> > 
> > We fix them when we know about them.
> > 
> > >c) Systemd doesn't seem to preserve existing activated services upon
> > >update (I recall having to manually activate cron and rsyslog).
> > 
> > Not preserving the enablement state of services when migrating from
> > SysV was mandated by FPC+FESCo. systemd developers dislike the
> > guideline just like you do.
> > 
> AFAIK, this was mandated by systemd developers + FPC.  FPC could not get the
> cooperation it needed from systemd developers on how to preserve enablement
> state the way they thought correct so chose the second best option as they saw
> it (enablement state saved using systemd-sysv-convert).  The alternative for
> FPC would have been to not approve systemd guidelines which we didn't want
> to do as that would have been blocking progress altogether.
> 
> This is one of those decisions that proves the saying "everyone hates
> a compromise".

Too make this clear: I think the current approach of "services that are
upgraded are disabled" is actually a really bad choice, and something
like "upgraded services stay enabled, though if the user did
per-runlevel manipulations of them they might end up being activated in
slightly different cases" would have been a much better option. But
quite frankly, my interest in these kinds of politics is quite minimal,
so I just accepted what FPC decided and avoided any further
discussions. It's not a fight I want to pick.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.