Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, 11:21:36 schrieb Lennart Poettering: > On Tue, 21.10.14 10:53, Martin Steigerwald (mar...@lichtvoll.de) wrote: > > So, aside from it being additional work, is there any *solid* or even > > *unavoidable* technical reason to couple functionality that tightly? > > Yes, there always is. For logind for example we need to be able to > group the processes of a session, so that we can keep track of them, > list them, kill them, get notifications about them, and so on. For > that we need the "scope" concept of PID1. That's why logind talks to > PID 1. > > You know, it really annoys me if you imply that we just made these > choices because we are assholes. We use the APIs we use because we > need their technical functionality. It's that simple. It would be > great if you'd grant us the benefit of the doubt at least, instead of > implying anything else.
Lennart, I didn´t imply that, and I didn´t say that. > > Wherever I look free software projects do great extra work to modularize > > and separate out functionality that can be separate. For a reason. See > > KDE community for example. They spend years of development work into > > separating things out into separate packages and have a clear ruling on > > what may depend on what. There are other examples for sure, OpenStack for > > example, while I do not yet know it in detail consists of a ton of > > separate packages in Debian. > > Well, we are not KDE, and not OpenStack. We provide a basic toolbox to > build an OS from. Compare us with Busybox if you must. I don't hear > you complaining about busybox all the time! Lennart, I get the impression you feel being accused. Yet I tried honestly to keep my mails to be polite and respectful. I tried to discuss about systemd and attitudes, not about persons. Busybox is highly more optional than systemd. I can use bash and coreutils, or mksh and BSD commands or whatnot. > > So or so… I think its this kind of attitude that triggers most of the > > polarity and split. > > Well, our priority is to solve technical problems in a way we perceive > elegant and minimal. Your priority appears to be appeasing people who > prefer religious reasoning over technical reasoning. I am pretty sure > you cannot appease those, and we will not compromise our technical > necessesities for that. > > Anyway, can we please end this discussion on this ML please? Please > continue this somewhere else, this ML is really for technical > discussions. > > Sorry, Well… actually I tried to discuss the concerns I and others have openly. I went through the hassle to provide the feedback where it matters… upstream… instead of joining the flamefests elsewhere or calling you names… … but it seems to me you are so sensitive to feedback that I don´t have the impression you even relate to the concerns I voiced here, which in part is a summary of the part of concerns I read elsewhere I see as being founded. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel