On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 12:17 +0100, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
On Sunday 18 January 2015 11:11:10 Michal Kubecek wrote:
In particular, this part:
This is a very ridiculous statement, sorry.
The package maintainers will not be 'pushed' to drop it. Nor will any scripts ensure there are no initV scripts. That's just pure non-sense
I guess that only Dominque can answer what his intentions were, however what I have seen so far is again a big flame war against systemd.
Let me try to answer that, and the way *I* would like to see this approached: let's summarize some factual statements: a) openSUSE is a systemd based distribution b) systemd benefits from using native systemd unit files c) we have packages providing sysv init scripts and systemd units d) we have packages providing only sysv init scripts e) we have packages providing only systemd units To get to the topic of the thread: I do see value in a rpmlint CHECK (Warning only) for a package that falls in category c or d (e being the 'de-facto' goal, implicit with the fact that we are producing a systemd based distribution) The check should be a WARNING, so that the users are aware of it. Nothing speaks against a scanner and a TODO wiki page, listing all the packages that emit this warning! This would give some ACTUAL tasks to work on. What we *should* start is for the review-team to be stricter on accepting *NEW* packages into our beloved distribution: if a new package can't keep up with the new technologies employed, we can probably safely argue that the maintenance of that package will suffer. I am still no fan of blocking packages that perfectly work, just because they do 'something different'. Cheers, Dominique -- Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger <dimstar@opensuse.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org