systemd-219 issues with 22 and Rawhide composes

Lennart Poettering mzerqung at
Mon Feb 23 12:23:01 UTC 2015

On Fri, 20.02.15 11:48, Dennis Gilmore (dennis at wrote:

> > While moving it is great, it's not really that important to move it. 
> > 
> > I mean, moving it is useful in the context of stateless systems that
> > can boot up with empty /etc. However, Fedora is so far away from that,
> > that we have tons of other things to fix first, before the os-release
> > move would start to matter.
> > 
> > We haven't posted a feature to make Fedora stateless in this sense,
> > and hence also didn't ask for /etc/os-release to be moved. There are
> > some upstream things to work on before we can propose such a Fedora
> > change.
> > 
> > So, thank you very much for moving it! But this is neither a change
> > that would really need coordination, nor something we pushed for from
> > our side.
> communication would have avoided some of the discussion in
> and likely avoided
> having the bug altogether. regardless of your reasons for making a
> change or how unimportant you consider it, others follow things that are
> done and follow up on them when you do not. I for one would appreciate
> knowing when the allowable fields change in os-release because the
> first I ever hear is when people file bugs asking for them to be added
> to Fedora. I then have to chase things down to catch up. 

Communication is a two way street, and as an upstream I cannot be in
the business of pinging every single downstream about every single
change individually, in particular if I consider the change

To learn about changes upstream, please follow the upstream
discussions, thank you.


Lennart Poettering, Red Hat

More information about the devel mailing list