On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 08:50 +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
So, instead of complaining, please switch to productive mode and
come with real improvements.
This is another alarming pattern repeating in recent openSUSE development: create a questionable feature which is cool for some and annoying for others; make it obligatory and if someone complains, tell them to improve it. I don't want to spend my time on improving features that I don't want at all just because someone thought they are so cool they should be forced on everyone. Fancy extra stuff should be opt-in or at least opt-out and only those who actually want it should be asked to improve it.
Let's remain fair here, shall we?
Thorsten did introduce the feature back in November: http://lists.opens
use.org/opensuse-factory/2016-11/msg00325.html
There was not a single reply to his mail - so he took the natural step
forward and went ahead with the integration.
Now for some this might come to a surprise, but if somebody asks for
feedback and gets none, this means silent acceptance.
The package in its current form is indeed a dependency to openSUSe-
release, as we do want to have an 'issue' file present. /etc/issue is
no longer owned by any package (as rpm -qf /etc/issue will confirm)
In order to maintain a defacto working status, openSUSE-release will
put a symlink in place if /etc/issue does not exist (which is at the
point where openSUSe-release was updated from containing the file to no
longer shipping it)
From that point forward, it is now FINALLY in the admins hand to have
/etc/issue show what he wants it to show, without the distro actually
messing with his files (that's a good thing, isn't it?)
So, you stay with the default, you have the issue-generator putting a
file in /run/issue and have /etc/issue symlinked to it. in the current
form, network addresses are being added (and optionally ssh key info)
An admin that does not want this auto-generated can replace /etc/issue
with a file of his liking - and have control over his system.
As for the network address being added or not, i agree, there is room
for discussion (which does not mean verbal abuse of the people doing
the work!)
What is missing, in my opinion, is an optin/optout feature for the
network address (which does not imply shadowing uder rules)
Also, in a proper long-run, agetty and 'all other tools' should learn
to use /etc/issue and, if not found, fall back to /run/issue - then we
could properly integrate this as a service that can be dis- and en-
abled on request.
I'd love to see the attitude on this mailing list to get back into a
co-operative wording. Let's give credit to the people DOING the works.
That does not mean we blindly accept what everybody is doing, but that
we help find the optimal solution. Not everything has to be a first-
time right (I wish it was) - but in actually communicating and putting
use-cases down, corner cases that were missed in one iteration can be
fixed.
If you start your emails with claiming how bad all the work that has
been done is, you will usually get exactly nothing in return, other
than disgruntled devs, leading to them just going to their chambers and
do things in the dark and really forcing it on you. Most of the readers
on this list have been around long enough to know about this phenomen.
So why push for it?
--
Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger