Am 21.06.2011 16:56, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi: > To add something actually constructive... someone could propose that > services which don't have systemd unit files don't ship for F16 (Probably as > part of the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd )
yes > That is an idea that has pros and cons. The major pros are that it means > that users will have a more consistent experience with reconfiguring the > on/off state of their services and we'll be forcing people to add systemd > unit files rather than just letting proposed changes just sit around in > bugs. please do this, this was what i expected for F15 to avoid a inconsistent systems and if it is allowed for F16 too not to make the change some lazy maintainers will wait forever > The cons are that we may lose some services for F16 because the services > aren't ported by the F16 deadline. However, they could be brought back > after F16 is released so that's not a huge con. We'd need to make sure that > the "essential" services are ported over, but IIRC, that's already the plan > for the alpha release no problem the really needed server packages are built on own infrastructure and i will backport the F16 packages before we roll out F15, that is the reason for my anger - i am not so good in writing service files and things that are not existing i can not backport :-( other peopole can take the src.rpm from F15 in most cases and do "rpmbuild --rebuild src.rpm" and finally we have a chance to get this lean without waiting a decade hopefully systemd will have a long future like sysvinit had for some decades and in 3 years that starts all again with an incompatible replacement
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
