On 9/6/2012 12:59 AM, Graham Anderson wrote:
On Wednesday 05 Sep 2012 23:53:15 Brian K. White wrote:
Most recent example of systemd attitude: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/23621
What exactly is the problem you perceive here? My comprehension of that thread (and in particular the second post) is quite different to yours. Of course it's entirely subjective but that in itself is quite the indicator that just posting such things adds nothing to the discussion, let me elaborate why.
To me, the wonderful irony of what you just posted is that the request was initially made quite politely and the response you seem to espouse is the one that demonstrates the most obtuse attitude; which to me pretty much seems like "It's systemd so it must be something bad". On the flip side to you it demonstrates something about upstream systemd which I fail to grasp and so it doesn't really move the discussion forward.
Cheers the noo, Graham
The first post in that mail list was polite, and didn't come from systemd directly but someone relaying their wishes. The attitude problem was already expressed by the post I pointed to. What is the point in me repeating it? Systemd are saying that someone else that predates them is now wrong because systemd wants to do something someone else doesn't already support just the way they want, even though no one else has a problem. Another example I saw a while back was rsync. rsync hasd had a certain set of exit values with various meanings, all nicely documented in their man pages and also predating systemd by over 10 years? Yet systemd called rsync's behavior a bug because there were some exit values other than 0 that didn't necessarily indicate an error. Rather than add a feature to systemd such that a unit author could define the behavior of the daemon, no, they tell the daemon that it's behavior is a bug. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org