On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Richard Hughes <hughsient@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > And now some mere userspace daemons mean users will constantly need to > reboot for upgrades? No. > Regressions against featuresets from the '70s and '80s are pretty unfortunate. A new feature is being added nothing is getting removed so no there is no regression. > This is starting to sound like evidence of a serious design flaw in > some of these daemons. I find that unfortunate because I really like > systemd. > > (And the "you can manually force it", seems not much of a consolation > to me— since that will be untested, unsupported, and very likely > non-functional.) Why do you think so? I am pretty sure that it will get a lot of testing by server users and users of otther / niche desktop environments. > If we ask the question— retrospectively, if we knew that eventually > the acceptance of systemd (or newer dbus-daemon) would have ultimately > resulted in needing to reboot for updates would we have accepted it? > I think the answer is pretty clearly No. dbus is not optional. Not including it would mean throw out half of the distro. And no idea what that has to do with systemd either. Randomly blame stuff does not help your point. > If slippery slope arguments are to be dismissed when they're used > against new features like systemd (or Wayland or whatever), then > Fedora really does need to draw a line in the sand and say no to bad > effects when they crop up. I am not seeing any bad effects here ... I am seeing a feature proposal that tries to solve a problem that you dismiss as non existent while it is. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
