On Wed, 09.11.11 13:49, Ian Kent (raven@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:52 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to move forward > > > > the conversion of the sysvinit scripts to systemd units in Fedora 17. > > > > > > > > The packages which ship sysvinit script but do not ship systemd unit > > > > according to the Fedora packaging guidelines violate this rule: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Unit_Files > > > > > > > Such a blocking would be just wrong ... as long as the packages *work* > > > there is no reason to do that. > > > I am all for encouraging maintainers to port there stuff but this is a > > > bit too much. > > > > What other form of encouragement can you suggest? > > This email thread for a start. > > I'm not hurrying to make changes to my package because I've had problems > a couple of times now because of what I consider poor documentation or a > lack of information about where to find documentation. This isn't > specific to systemd at all. systemd is actually one of the better documented open source projects: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-docs.html and since then: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activation2.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/instances.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/inetd.html Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
