systemd-219 issues with 22 and Rawhide composes
dcantrell at redhat.com
Mon Feb 23 15:52:38 UTC 2015
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 04:27:22PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.02.15 08:17, David Cantrell (dcantrell at redhat.com) wrote:
> > > 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
> > > unimportant.
> > >
> > > To learn about changes upstream, please follow the upstream
> > > discussions, thank you.
> > This still fails. The expectation here is that downstream consumers know an
> > upstream change is coming. As evidenced by the various bugs mentioned in
> > this thread, the result is "surprise, something changed". So the discovery
> > is reactionary rather than coordinated before putting a change in
> > rawhide.
> Hey, there was no need for Fedora to change the path for
> /etc/os-release. It was good that it decided to change, but this was
> done without contacting me, and I didn't push for it, I was not
> involved at all really, and I cannot read people's minds about it. The
> change is nothing that would normally considered an "incompatible
> change", it just moved one file from /etc to /usr/lib and replaced it
> with a symlink.
> Please find something else to complain about. THis particular case
> makes a really bad example, since I was hardly involved, it wasn't my
> side that was communicating badly, but the folks adding this to
> Fedora, and that wasn't me.
Are you the owner of systemd or not? You travel the world giving talks
about it, yet when confronted with problems caused by changes in systemd you
point to others and say it's not you. What is it? Either you have a stake
in systemd or not.
> > It would be a slightly different story if rawhide's systemd was gated by
> > someone doing Fedora integration coordination, but it doesn't appear anyone
> > is doing that. And you say you can't, though I am disappointed with that
> > since you sort of kind of already signed up for that work by starting
> > systemd and getting it in to Fedora in the first place. If it's not you
> > that coordinates this work, someone who works on and/or maintains the
> > systemd package in Fedora should be doing this. That is, and I am trying to
> > be specific here, changes that impact other components in the distribution
> > need to be coordinated in Fedora among the affected components.
> David, I see how you would like to pin this all on systemd's
> supposedly bad communication. But coming back to the /etc/resolv.conf
> issue: it really just boils down to the fact that you knew the change
> was coming 6 months ago, but instead of making the necessary one-line
> fix in your packages, you didn't do anything.
OK, if we're speaking specifically about this, what a change like this
requires is a heads-up when you are going to commit the change to rawhide.
That's it. A six month old bug doesn't count. Fine, we knew about it via
the filed bug, but we don't know WHEN you'll be pushing the change. And
even if you did mention exactly when that would happen, a heads up to teams
to remind them to make their changes is super helpful. Again, *you* are the
one who knows this is coming more precisely than we do.
Your insistence on not taking responsibility for problems that you directly
cause is frustrating. And many people have pointed this out. You are very
quick to immediately distance yourself from conflicts caused by systemd by
raising any number of flags, such as "it's Fedora, not me" or "that was an
upstream decision, Fedora doesn't have to follow it". Come on, seriously?
Fedora is all about maximum upstream cooperation and usage, so you cannot
seriously think you can distance yourself from Fedora that much.
All we want is BETTER COMMUNICATION from you within this project. This
project being Fedora. Be a team player, please.
David Cantrell <dcantrell at redhat.com>
Manager, Installer Engineering Team
Red Hat, Inc. | Westford, MA | EST5EDT
More information about the devel