[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] add sprezzos as alias for debian in autoconf script

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Tomasz Torcz <tomek@pipebreaker.pl> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 03:30:08PM -0500, nick black wrote:
>>  - at some point, either debian or the derivative might lurch in a new
>>    direction. in either case, carefully-crafted, minimal new
>>    TARGET_-specific code (or however you choose to do it) can mirror the
>>    divergence. all scripts continue to work.
>   At this point derevative should stop and think.  Is this diversion really
> needed (hint: almost never is)?  What advantages this diversion brings, if
> any?  If it's a good idea, why upstream did not go this way?
>   Systemd project is trying to _get rid_ of distro difference in such trivial
> matters as hostname file location.  Configure options are needed to make
> adoption easier, but the holy grail would be removing those options.

Removing all TARGET options is still the goal and will surely happen some
day. We did the same thing for udev in the past, and will go the same road here.

And sure, we should not add new TARGET options now. Projects should just
adopt the new config files, regardless if they like or want to support systemd.
The files are reasonable generic, and after a short transition period it will be
better for everybody to use the same logic in the distributions.

Like Debian's /etc/hostname, systemd decided on it as the canonical name and
location, and systems which really want something else, should carry
the burden of
maintaining it themselves, and not rely on upstream projects to carry their

Fedora removed quite a few legacy stuff already, and more is on their way

I hope people understand, that it's a win for everybody in the long run, not to
support almost entirely needless distro differences in upstream projects.

With that in mind, the distributions with a TARGET in the systemd source tree,
are the lazy ones, not the cool ones. :)


Reply to: