systemd-219 issues with 22 and Rawhide composes
mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Mon Feb 23 16:13:53 UTC 2015
On Mon, 23.02.15 10:52, David Cantrell (dcantrell at redhat.com) wrote:
> 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.
Uh? I meant the maintainer of fedora-release.rpm with this.
Sure I have a stake in systemd, but certainly none in
fedora-release.rpm. But even for systemd, there are a number of people
who work on the RPM. And while I feel responsible for it, there will
always be changes made without me knowing, or with me even
agreeing. But it's *good* that way. I trust Zbigniew, and I am not the
control freal who wants to be involved with all choices made... And
quite frankly, I think that Zbigniew is a much nicer guy than I am, so
you should be happy about this.
But anyway, I think it's time to end the discussion, this is
In the case of the /etc/resolv.conf change: The change of behaviour in
systemd was simply addition of a fallback code path in case
/etc/resolv.conf was missing. This was communicated to you 6 months
ago. If anaconda/livecd's copy routine would be fixed, then there
would be no issue. This triggered a bug in your package that is
all. No other packages would be affected if this one-line fix was made
In the case of the /etc/os-release change: this is actually a minor
change, since compat is provided via a symlink. Adoption by Fedora was
optional, it is great though it happened, and I am thankful that
Zbginiew pushed for it.
Neither issue is an API break, and both changes are rather local and
minor. I am very sure that neither of this changes require grand
theatralic announcements, and in order to keep the noise level low,
there wasn't any. And I'd probably handle the same case the same way
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
More information about the devel