On Fri, 10.02.12 10:19, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:04:20PM +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: > > On 02/10/2012 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > [... issues after upgrades ...] > > > > We fix them when we know about them. > > > > >c) Systemd doesn't seem to preserve existing activated services upon > > >update (I recall having to manually activate cron and rsyslog). > > > > Not preserving the enablement state of services when migrating from > > SysV was mandated by FPC+FESCo. systemd developers dislike the > > guideline just like you do. > > > AFAIK, this was mandated by systemd developers + FPC. FPC could not get the > cooperation it needed from systemd developers on how to preserve enablement > state the way they thought correct so chose the second best option as they saw > it (enablement state saved using systemd-sysv-convert). The alternative for > FPC would have been to not approve systemd guidelines which we didn't want > to do as that would have been blocking progress altogether. > > This is one of those decisions that proves the saying "everyone hates > a compromise". Too make this clear: I think the current approach of "services that are upgraded are disabled" is actually a really bad choice, and something like "upgraded services stay enabled, though if the user did per-runlevel manipulations of them they might end up being activated in slightly different cases" would have been a much better option. But quite frankly, my interest in these kinds of politics is quite minimal, so I just accepted what FPC decided and avoided any further discussions. It's not a fight I want to pick. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
