On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 21:22 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> I wonder whether it wouldn't be time to say goodbye to tcpwrappers in > >> Fedora. There has been a request in systemd upstream to disable support > >> for it by default, but I am not sure I want to do that unless we can > >> maybe say goodbye to it for the big picture too. > > > > I have decided now to drop all support for tcpwrap from systemd, for the > > next release. For those who believe that tcpd is really a good idea > > (yuck!) not much is lost though, they can just plug in tcpd into > > systemd, the way they did it with good old inetd, too, hence we are not > > taking anything away there, we are pretty much compatible with what > > inetd supported there (or actually: didn't support there). > > > > I am not going to file a feature for Fedora, to remove support for it > > entirely across the whole distro. I still think dropping it is the right > > thing to do, but I don't think it's a good use of my own time, to fight > > this through... I'd be happy though if somebody else would pick this > > up. Looking at the current FESCO members I am not entirely sure though > > whether a proposal to disable libwrap would have a chance in the current > > cycle though. (also, M. Miller kinda supported the proposal, which as > > history tells us means he probably is _not_ going to vote for it in the > > end...) > > > > It's a pity though that nobody in Fedora is actively working on getting > > rid of legacy cruft. I really wished we had some people who oversee > > deprecating things more proactively, figure out how to deprecate things, > > write stub code to provide smooth transitions, write release notes and > > so on. Being at the bleeding edge of things also means deciding that > > some things really should go, from time to time... Besides deprecating > > old cruft like libwrap, this would also mean removing all the old crap > > from comps "standard" that we still install by default (894110)... > > Interesting! You sent the email starting this thread a mere 4 days > ago, two of those a weekend. You've not given it a chance to even go > to FESCo meeting for discussion. Did you send it in the same way to > the rest of the distros that depend, or are soon to depend on, systemd > now.... SuSE, Arch, Debian, Ubuntu etc giving them no chance to > discuss the impact before you unceremoniously tear a feature, for > some, out? > > Ultimately I've long stopped using tcpwrappers (a decade or so ago in > fact) so it doesn't bother me what so ever but I know of a LOT of > people that use it, rightly or wrongly, extensively. > > systemd is now, or soon will be, a core component of pretty much all > major and minor distributions out there and it's no longer just about > you Lennart and your thoughts of whether it's "Yuck!" or not, you are > now similar to the kernel and like the kernel you should have a proper > deprecation process that is not just what you, Kay and who ever the > main developers decide is cool or not at the time. You should give us > and distributions in general more than 4 days to deal with what lives > or not. Ultimately systemd is no longer in nappies and is all grown > up, while you are still it's father it's now a teenager and needs to > be somewhat independent of it's father, it has friends that now depend > on it and there's should be a central place where these architectural > changes and deprecation intentions are announced, discussed and in the > case of deprecation given more than 4 days before removal. +1 Simo, -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
