On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >> > I'm going to be blunt. I DON'T CARE. >> >> Yay, thanks that you don't care. You are aware that by putting >> everything on a single man's shoulders and then telling him "you don't >> care" you make him feel really welcome and make him wonder why he >> even bothers with this shit? >> >> > Sure, I suppose individual maintainers want to push their code over the wall and >> > then sit in their silo and claim 'that's not my problem' and 'someone else >> > needs to fix that', well, that's their right to be lame. But we, as Fedora, >> > as producers of a product that we ship to our users, don't have that luxury. >> >> But you enable them to block out change. For example, if somebody >> refuses to merge a patch that adds a systemd equivalent for an upstart >> config hook he has, he can sink the whole systemd in fedora project. I >> am pretty sure some folks would be really happy to have that power... > > Hey, lets not get carried away here. It is pretty clear that Bills list > of checkpoints for init / boot functionality covered not just systemd, > but plymouth, gdm, initscripts, kernel, dracut, and a bunch of other > early userspace packages. I'm sure the maintainers of those packages > will be willing to help with making the init / boot experience of Fedora > 14 great. > > To my knowledge, this is the first time we've ever looked at codifying > what behaviours we expect in this area (why didn't we do this exercise > for upstart ?). It is very useful, and if nothing else, this is already > a very useful outcome of the systemd adventure. Indeed, imo we should add them to the release criteria. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
