On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:46:37AM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Michal Vyskocil
wrote: I do not believe that extending the "transition period" for one, or more openSUSE releases will make anything better.
I hope I'm not feeding the troll, but experience has shown that one release cycle wasn't enough to make systemd server-worthy.
I say server, because most (yet not all) of the bugs reported affected servers. Because systemd seems to have concentrated on desktop functionality, and lacks many features server sysadmins need.
Hallo Claudio, I honestly disagree, as I faced a lot of systemd bugs in a past on my desktop. Anyway the "lacking features part" have to follow the list of things cannot be handled by systemd - I doubt there are any others than this is done differently than before, or this one particular hackish script do not boot (call it suse-network-scripts-syndromme ;-). But I can be wrong, so the best way how to correct me is list of issues, you've reported and I'll shut up immediatelly ;-)
So... IMO, this is wishful thinking, and closing the transition period before systemd is server-worthy is burying one's head in the sand. Killing systemd is unlikely to happen, so we're left with this situation of multiple init systems.
Unfortunatelly current situation is very bad from sysvinit and systemd point of view as we do not have a good support for anyone. I am convinced the transition period did not succeeded, mainly because most of people facing a problem with systemd switched back to sysv - that makes all problems hidden to us. So I vote for making a period over, decide, let people affected by systemd report their bug and in case they all won't be fixed in next openSUSE release, add it to release notes, so people will be informed and can switch this release.
If you ask me, this is good. Packagers are spoiled in thinking there's only one init system, and the machinery that will inevitably grow to handle the two init systems will be a good thing for openSUSE's packaging process in general. It's like, in programming, splitting an ill-conceived monolithic app into well defined modules - a pain at the beginning, but a huge benefit in the end.
Did you say having two init systems is good because it enhance a modularity? Or I'm completelly wrong? Regards Michal Vyskocil