Comment # 11 on bug 987668 from Eric Bischoff

Hi Franck,


(In reply to Franck Bui from comment #10)
> IMHO, that's just the wrong thing to do...
>  
> Well, they decide to use their own implementation of sd_notify() so you're
> basically on your own now, sorry. And it will surely break later when
> systemd will decide to change any bits of the implementation of the
> sd_notify() protocol.
> 
> (And of course sd_notify() is supported by systemd v210).

I can understand why they did it: to remove dependency to systemd libraries.

With respect to future changes, in the patch comments they say "this is a
stable ABI from systemd's POV which explicitly allows independent
implementations".

It resolves https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314881.

So it's not a gratuitous change just for the pleasure of reimplementing things
:-) .