On Thursday 06 Sep 2012 02:09:56 Brian K. White wrote:
On 9/3/2012 10:42 PM, Graham Anderson wrote:
On Monday 03 Sep 2012 18:30:48 Carlos E. R. wrote:
Agreed. We should ditch systemd and return to systemv.
Then you also will steup up and maintain it when nobody else is prepared to? Then you will fix for me?:
Equinox port servers (old hardware, no longer updated by manufacturer, you can buy me new portservers that will have new systemd compatible software if you don't want to hack the stuff for the old port servers.)
Digiboard port servers (old hardware, no longer updated by manufacturer, you can buy me new portservers that will have new systemd compatible software if you don't want to hack the stuff for the old port servers.)
Cyclades port servers (Manufacturer no longer exists, no option to buy a new updated replacement, since it has features other don't)
VSI-FAX
Rand McNally Milemaker
ATI scsi raid
LSI scsi raid
hylafax and vsftpd in my obs repo, bear in mind the same package needs to still build and install on old suse versions back to 10.0, so no changing the spec file in a way that only works on the new system.
eicon T1 cards
Prophesy
Lucky for you I just happen to no longer use lxc vm's in production so the problem of systemd refusing to implement execstatus won't be a problem. because I had a good init script system that worked, including gracefully shutting down vm's before the host goes down, and reliably being able to tell if a vm was "running" or not, and last I looked, there was no way to do that in systemd. Oh you could write something that would more or less work some of the time, but it couldn't be made reliable, because systemd had no way to actually check what needed to be checked in order to really tell the state of a container vm.
Anything else I didn't remember off the top of my head just now.
If you're not, then the conversation belongs on the topic of making systemd perform as a full drop-in transparent replacement, BEFORE forcing it on users.
So If I am to understand your position... It's that openSUSE, a distro with a support lifecycle of less than two years, should never make any changes that prevent *you* from supporting decades old hardware and software; and that the distro should continue to maintain a 30 year old technology in perpetuity or until such time as any replacement supports all the known hardware and software configurations that have ever run under sysv in the last thirty years? I fully understand that nobody wants to lose support for the gear and services they run, but I really cannot see your expectations of perpetual support for such old technology as being reasonable with regards to such a distro as openSUSE. I would be in agreement with you if such changes happened every two years, but they don't. This is a once in thirty year (or once in 18 years for this distro's history) change and I think you have to face a hard dose of reality that given such a time frame, this change is not unreasonable. If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. Since you have no aversion to running old and unsupported tech, and why not... if it works it works. Why don't you simply continue to run the versions of openSUSE that have sysv init for these old configurations, and let the rest of us plan for the future rather than be shackled to the past. Cheers the noo, Graham -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org