[opensuse-factory] Re: What is the purpose of the systemd journal service?

Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

El 30/04/13 21:04, Joachim Schrod escribió:

...

Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:

...

On 2013-04-30T11:38:19, Ruediger Meier wrote:

...

...

That's why it is called --verify and not --repair .. (not implemented yet, never advertised as repair either) How can such untested alpha quality stuff make it into a distro?

Because the community didn't object when it was merged, or during the beta phase.

Oh, many of us objected, but were ignored.

Objecting does not mean anything, those who do the work are the ones that take decisions.

Yes, that's the bad thing -- I accept that I'm not as relevant as I'm to busy looking for the next TeX-Live that must go out and CTAN must stay running, but -- can't you folks take some hints from Linus that backward compatibility and robustness is a MUST HAVE, not a NICE to HAVE thing?

In fact, look at

...

Christian's reaction to Stefan's bug report -- no comment needed, denial at its best.

What denial ? He pointed out 3 problems,

- The other one is where he says --verify does not fix broken journal files, this is expected, it has never gained the capability of fixing the files nor it was advertised that it did, what the command line flags do is clearly documented in the manual.

That's the denial I meant. That something is documented in the manual doesn't mean that it ain't a bug, and a show-stopper for putting things in a distribution, even though some folks like to think it is. Don't understand me wrong -- I think systemd has a lot of good ideas and a sound concept. The introduction in oS was too rushed, and its tendency to subsume all other system service are frightening from a sysadmin maintenance perspective. I've read your joke yesterday about CUPS not being subsumed by systemd right yet -- but I wouldn't hold my breath for it. crond is next [*], what comes afterwards? Are you sure that printers are not something that might appear and disappear and thus something that systemd developers might want to start to their we-control-it list? Since, that's the pattern -- ``everything that might come up or go down asynchronously has to be managed by systemd'' (TM). For developer's laptops, that's nice, but on servers the current state of affair is not adequate. Joachim [*] Note: My problem ain't because systemd is not able to issue time-event based activations. It's clear that it is. It's because cron is already completely inadequate for any professional job scheduling tasks -- and systemd is worse, instead of being better. The actual problem is decoupling: substitution of cron jobs in a given distribution seems to be easier than decoupling from the integration that's planned for systemd as a cron replacement. Well, we'll see how that turns out; -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Joachim Schrod, Roedermark, Germany Email: jschrod@acm.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org