On 06/02/2016 11:36 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 06/02/2016 03:13 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> I don't think we need to change Fedora 24 for this. Unless I misunderstood, this >> systemd change has not been pushed to Fedora 24 (nor proposed for it). We're >> prepping for how to deal with things in Fedora 25. > > You should not so easily dismiss and rule out core/baseOS ( and even other ) > components adapting similar or same updating rebase scheme as the kernel > community is using as ( and has prove to be working ). > > There where upcoming changes in systemd that prevented this back in 2013 when I > wrote this [1] proposal and we discussed it but those road blocks are no more > afaik hence there is nothing preventing systemd from adapting an rebase scheme > similar/same to the one that the kernel community is using. > I'm not saying that upstream systemd wouldn't or couldn't rebase, I was saying that my understanding was that there was no plans for the KillUserProcesses default to be changed post-release in any Fedora. That would be a significant violation of the stable update policy, which I'm pretty certain the systemd maintainers are aware of. I should also have been more specific with the term "this" in my last email; I was referring to whether we needed to revert the user bus change because of systemd. By my current understanding, that would not be necessary.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
