[systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance

[Sérgio Basto]

On Seg, 2014-09-22 at 17:00 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: 
> 
> Am 22.09.2014 um 16:48 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> > On Seg, 2014-09-22 at 16:08 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> no you refuse to understand that *nobody* wants to split
> >> out *all* systemd logs because just the excessive *user
> >> session* logging and that this messages should not exist
> >> at all in a non-debugging environment
> > 
> > IIUC , this messages doesn't exist in a non-debugging environment since
> > ends of Apr [1], or I shut up this messages somehow , I don't
> > remember ...
> 
> * i shut up them with "loginctl enable-linger"
> * that's a workaround
> * doing so in F20 to prevent forget with F21 leads to
>   another bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1088619#c54

This message is from 2014-08-30 and is to fix shutdown, loginctl
disable-linger $USER, seems not reenable messages flood, if that what
you mean .

But please calm down , this is not a very big deal ..  

> it is even *possible* that it was changed but if so it shows
> several problems:
> 
> * nobody knows, people already built workarounds
> * it takes too long for any reaction on such issues
>   so that people can't or won't wait for a response
>   and try to find bugreports because lost hope that
>   things become better in a reasonable time
> * the reaction close with "NOTABUG" after weeks of ignore is wrong
> 
> frankly that was once introduced even in F19 backports and
> quickly fixed while also point to "loginctl enable-linger"
> which is *really* a dirty workaround leading the user sessions
> are started at boot before the first cronjob fires up which
> wastes ressources at boot
> 
> only that it was fixed in a short because that backport was
> not targeted for F19 shows how easy it could be changed if
> upstream would care about downstream in any way
> 
> look at the response from Johann directed to downstream in general,
> Fedora and FeSCO in special and the repeatet responses "we are upstream
> and this and that are downstream problems we don't care" shows how
> terrible wrong things are going
> 
> a upstream of a *critical core componentent* with a "i don't care
> about downstream" attitude is only one thing: dangerous
> 
> 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.