On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I just want to see changes in a backwards-compatible way whenever it is > practical. I understand that that is not always the case, but I don't > see anything here that indicates systemd and the long-standing > chkconfig/service interfaces can't continue to work. IMHO the onus is > on the systemd developers to make it backwards compatible where > practical, as they are the group that (a) are advocating a major change > and (b) know how systemd (and presumably the current init system) works. The onus is on _us_ as participants to get changes well integrated in a timely manner. There's never been a mandate..nor will their every be a mandate for a Fedora feature to be 100% backwards compatible across releases as a showstopper for inclusion. To suggest otherwise is pure hyperbole. Systemd is going into rawhide early enough for those of us who care about script oriented backwards compatibility to sand down of the edges we care about regardless of the priorities of the main developer(s). As long as we are not bumping up against fundamental differences in opinion and they give us the freedom of action to make backwards compatibility with legacy tools possible. I think we are having this discussion early enough. But we need to figure out what those items that are high priority to us (but low in the upstream todo list) are and knock them out in parallel. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
