On 07/31/2013 11:57 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, zxq9<z...@zxq9.com> wrote:
On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia<nka...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom H<tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, good link. I'm just concerned it's going to cause build
problems for *every single open source daemon* as their SRPM's or
.spec files need to have two sets of options, one for the older SysV
init scripts and one for systemd, or need to be split to two different
.spec files. This is going to be so much fun!
You're welcome.
Very true. Similar to some current Fedora spec files:
%if 0%{?rhel}
...
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora}
...
%endif
An eyesore and a mess; until December 2020...
tl;dr, Relevant Fedora thread first:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October/thread.html#172159
Reminds me of a dismal post from October:
http://zxq9.com/archives/711
I was only commenting on the more complex and unreadable spec files.
Otherwise I'm happy about systemd and journald. In short, the kernel
has evolved, the applications have evolved, why not the init system?
Its not that the init system can't do with some modernization, its that
the new system has a severe case of featuritis that is spawning little
eddies of nonlocalized complexity all over the place. Modernizing a
system and tossing everything that's come before in the interest of a
deliberately incompatible rewrite are different things. Remember HAL?
