![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/638c5f9b9a41e53d4663197a58261c49.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hello, On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Robert Schweikert wrote:
On 08/11/2014 01:49 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote:
On Saturday 09 of August 2014 06:09:14 Robert Schweikert wrote:
So, my appeal to all. Please stop the systemd bashing, it leads nowhere. If there is a bug in systemd that annoys you, file the bug or go fix it, be constructive. If because of 1 in the 7000+ packages in Factory the openSUSE distribution no longer meets your needs or your stability expectations then so be it.
The problem is it's not one package. In the name of systemd, the whole system is being redesigned and reworked in order to make the other options stop working.
This implies malicious intend. I doubt that anyone makes any changes with the intent to break something else.
The whole design of systemd reeks of malicious intent (now, that's a bit of bashing *hrhr*). It may be unwillingly, but the effect is the same. Out of whatever actual intent.
I've found numerous cases where changes have been done to other packages that don't help systemd and systemd systems at all but only break non-systemd systems. And then I keep reading these "if you want to provide an alternative, you are welcome to do so" appeals. It's frustrating and I really feel like I'm being mocked on purpose.
Sorry you feel this way. In the end it is up to each package maintainer to decide which SRs to accept and which ones to decline. If there is a pending SR that removes sysV init support and makes systemd the only support than it is up to the package maintainer to decide if this is OK or not.
It is _NOT_ up to the package maintainer if openSUSE removes sysvinit from the distro and tons of changes require you to install systemd. Guess why "systemd-shim" is called as it is? As a "pretend" systemd, to fool all the stuff requiring systemd. That's how far it has already crept into the infrastructure (and upstreams). [..]
It is also not necessarily fair to expect a maintainer to maintain code for multiple init systems when the distribution init system is systemd.
The difference is: until now, no init precluded another. And especially, no init gobbled up tons of other critical functions like logging, udev, dbus etc. And as far as I know LP's work, he's far from done yet. Oh, and BTW: ==== 9. systemd is designed with glibc in mind, and doesn't take kindly to supporting other libcs all that much[10]. In general, the systemd developers' idea of a standard libc is one that has bug-for-bug compatibility with glibc. ==== THAT's a huge honking blaring big major NO-NO for all that want to run Linux on embedded stuff using µlibc, dietlibc, ... Guessing from that, I wouldn't bat an eye when systemd gobbles up glibc too ... If systemd just were another init (like upstart, openrc, etc.), I wouldn't care. But IT IS NOT. Far from it! -dnh [10] NMF -- Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better. -- Richard Stallman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org