On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:41:42PM +0200, MichaÅ Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > 2011/4/26 Michal Jaegermann <michal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:25:47AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote: > >> On 04/26/2011 11:18 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > >> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:56:26PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> >> systemd comes with extensive documentation and your typical response to > >> >> all changes isn't applicable here. ÂIf you are going to claim lack of > >> >> documentation, can you be more specific? > >> >> > >> >> http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/ > >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd > >> > > >> > That includes links to such "perls of wisdom" as > >> > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > >> > which in effect says: "I broke it and I totally do not care. Anyway, > >> > this is all your fault as you are stupid enough to run a system > >> > laid out not the way I like it." ÂWhy I am not surprised? > >> > >> Did you read it? ÂIt actually says "I did not break it - it's been > >> broken for a while in a number of different ways". > > > > Yes, I read it. ÂThat is a very feeble excuse as what's "been broken > > for a while" works just fine now so that claim is at least stretching > > reality. > > > > Watching for some time on lkml how kernel developers try to avoid > > breaking existing working systems could be educational. > > AFAIK systemd adds only a warning about /usr on separate partition - > nothing more. So you say that I should not believe in that statement <quote> You can of course say: I don't need 3G, no Audio, D-Bus is evil anyway, and I don't want to print, and plug'n'play isn't for me anyway ..... </quote> from http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken either? Michal -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
