http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 Franck Bui changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|bnc-team-screening@forge.pr |mls@suse.com |ovo.novell.com | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c8 Michael Schröder changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kukuk@suse.com --- Comment #8 from Michael Schröder --- The customer absolutly didn't want a forces restart if an update was installed. I don't remember the exact details, maybe Thorsten knows. I find the idea to remove it "just because someone can shot himself in the foot" a bit strange. One of the principles of linux is that to give users enough rope to hang themselfs ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c10 --- Comment #10 from Franck Bui --- (In reply to Michael Schröder from comment #8)

I find the idea to remove it "just because someone can shot himself in the foot" a bit strange. One of the principles of linux is that to give users enough rope to hang themselfs ;)

Not sure you can call it "one of the principles of linux"... it might apply to rpm but I don't think you can/should generalize this principle to all projects out there (fortunately) ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c23 Michael Schröder changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #23 from Michael Schröder --- I'm closing this for now. Please discuss on the mailing lists. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c25 --- Comment #25 from Michael Schröder --- Factory is gonna be SLE-16 in the future, so I don't really get that point. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c27 --- Comment #27 from Michael Schröder --- I think you're missing one of the points of Factory: it's meant as a testbed for the next SLE. Therefore we want the difference between SLE and openSUSE to be as small as possible. Think of that openSUSE Jump effort, which aims to reuse binary packages from SLE in openSUSE. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c29 --- Comment #29 from Franck Bui --- (In reply to Thorsten Kukuk from comment #28)

If nobody finds the variable, we will get all the L3 again that this feature is missing with the next SLE version. Doesn't make much sense to me.

We already agreed on the fact that these variables are a poor workaround for preventing some 3rd party applications to not be restarted during update, right ? So advertising them in both yast2 and /etc/sysconfig and pretending that this setting is fully supported as we currently do is misleading IMHO. In contrary I think we should hide them until a customer does ask for it and in this case we can first see whether this can be avoided and if not explicitly state that this is a bad option to choose. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c31 --- Comment #31 from Franck Bui --- Ok if you think that disabling the restart of all packages installed on the system, resulting in a system running in an incoherent state (without speaking about the security fixes not being applied and the rest) then fine, I completely misunderstood you and we should continue exposing the variables as if it's something sane. But now, how can we proceed from there ? At least I'm sure that we decided to drop the support for these variables for Factory so they should be dropped from /etc/sysconfig and yast but apparently rpm from is used by all SLE distros [1] and Michael Schröder wants to keep them it identical. [1] I don't see how this can be possible given the fact that each distro I looked run a different version of rpm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c33 --- Comment #33 from Franck Bui --- (In reply to Michael Schröder from comment #32)

I never said that, do not make up things.

Then I was probably mislead by your following comment:

Think of that openSUSE Jump effort, which aims to reuse binary packages from SLE in openSUSE.

AFAIK SLE binary packages are (going to be) reused by openSUSE Leap only so I'm not sure to understand which point you tried to make since this request is about Factory. And the fact that Leap will inherit its binary packages from Factory doesn't mean that next major version of SLE will have to be the same as Factory, does it ? Factory will have some divergences with next major version of SLE - some shortcomings have been introduced in SLE somehow and we have to keep them in SLE for backward compat reasons. Deprecating those stuff in SLE takes a while (here we have a good example) and it's nearly impossible for some cases. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't improve Factory OTOH. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029129#c35 --- Comment #35 from Franck Bui --- (In reply to Michael Schröder from comment #34)

My point is the openSUSE:Factory will be SLE16 at one point, so we should not remove functionality required for SLES. Factory is supposed to be a testbed for SLES, so we should diverge as little as possible.

I agree with this in general but "as little as possible" doesn't mean "shoud not diverge". There're exceptions (tmpfs on /tmp, persistent naming scheme to list a few of them in systemd) and I think this is one of them. As pointed out serveral times already this functionality is badly designed and is unsafe, hence should not be proposed to TW/Factory users and IMHO should not be advertised in SLE neither. We only keep this for SLE because we have to keep backward compat for customers. Anyway, if you still want to keep them in sysconfig regardless of whether they're supported or not then that's your decision. I took time to initiate a discussion in JIRA, where we agreed on removing them in Factory, made sure that no openSUSE user relies on them, let you know that support for these variables will be removed from Factory... so I'm done. Feel free to close it as WONTFIX. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.