On 11/16/2014 at 05:11 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 09:02:12AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> I would, for example, have classified the discussions / arguments >> in the "systemd-sysv | systemd-shim" bug which appears to have >> recently been resolved by TC decision as being an example of what I >> thought was being referred to by the original "bitter rearguard >> action" reference: fighting over the implementation details in an >> attempt to maintain as much ground for non-systemd as possible. > > I was really confused that this needed to go to the TC; from what I > could tell, it had no downside systems using systemd, and it made > things better on non-systemd systems. What was the downside of > making the change, and why did it have to go to the TC instead of > the maintainer simply accepting the patch?
My understanding (based on having read the early stages of the two-or-three bugs on that subject) is that it has to do with the fact that that there were at the time or recently had been bugs against systemd-shim and/or its dependencies such that systemd-shim would provide degraded functionality compared with systemd-sysv. On that basis, I believe the maintainer's opinion was that it would better serve the users to preferentially install the dependency which we *know* will work (at least to a baseline), unless a request has been made to do otherwise. If that isn't correct, or if there was more to it than that, I'd be interested to be corrected on that subject myself. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
