Well, I have tried systemd now ...

[Michal Jaegermann]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:41:42PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann <michal at harddata.com>:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> >> On 04/26/2011 11:18 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> >> systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to
> >> >> all changes isn't applicable here.  If you are going to claim lack of
> >> >> documentation, can you be more specific?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/
> >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd
> >> >
> >> > That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as
> >> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
> >> > which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway,
> >> > this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system
> >> > laid out not the way I like it."  Why I am not surprised?
> >>
> >> Did you read it?  It actually says "I did not break it - it's been
> >> broken for a while in a number of different ways".
> >
> > Yes, I read it.  That is a very feeble excuse as what's "been broken
> > for a while" works just fine now so that claim is at least stretching
> > reality.
> >
> > Watching for some time on lkml how kernel developers try to avoid
> > breaking existing working systems could be educational.
> 
> AFAIK systemd adds only a warning about /usr on separate partition -
> nothing more.

So you say that I should not believe in that statement
<quote>
You can of course say: I don't need 3G, no Audio, D-Bus is evil
anyway, and I don't want to print, and plug'n'play isn't for me
anyway .....
</quote>
from http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken
either?

   Michal