On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:25 AM, James Rogers <wa...@preternatural.net> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>> We're basically going to be stuck with systemd for release 7. It's > >>> wedged > >>> into all the upstream Fedora daemons, sometimes with a crowbar and a > can > >>> of > >>> Jiffy Lube. There are some serious problems that it resolves (such as > >>> demons > >>> dying off, and requiring some sort of master daemon to make sure they > >>> get > >>> restarted as needed). If you want to affect choices like that, then you > >>> need > >>> to get into the developer cycles with Fedora and affect changes > >>> upstream. > >> > >> Given how fully-fleshed out systemd is and the momentum that it has, I > >> don't see how getting involved in Fedora or further upstream could > >> change the basic thrust of systemd. > > > > Oh, yes, I didn't mean to to suggest we'd have a lot of choice about > systemd > > coming down the pike at *this* point. Current Fedora releases have > already > > discarded the sysvinit package, it looks like a done deal for the pending > > release 7 from our favorite upstream Linux vendor. I meant that if we > wanted > > to affect changes like this, we have to be involved in the Fedora > releases > > as developers, and users, and critics of what are the software > candidates fo > > rthe next release. > > I'd misunderstood you, sorry. > > Let's assume that you'd been involved in systemd from the beginning, > what would you have proposed to change? >
