On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:45:32PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 22 mai 2013 à 09:41 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:45:54PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > When you compare the time it takes to write an upstart job file or a > > > systemd unit file, to the time it takes to proprely test it, I don’t > > > think this argument makes any sense. > > Please leave the FUD at the door. Writing upstart jobs is not difficult; > > while there are some gotchas currently with process lifecycle (which will be > > fixed soon), there is also very complete documentation (for these issues, > > and generally). > In which way do you disagree with what I wrote, exactly? Maybe my > English was wrong, so let me explain it in simple words. > Time to write an upstart job = short > Time to write a systemd unit file = short > Time to test an upstart job = long > Time to test a systemd unit file = long > Therefore: > How much we should care of existing upstart jobs = little > How much we should care of existing systemd unit files = little I see - yes, I misunderstood your argument, and thought you were claiming that upstart jobs take longer to write and test. The above makes more sense. I do think that in the context of Debian, upstart has the upper hand in terms of the testing owing to the fact that Ubuntu, which is very similar to Debian, has already worked out most of the kinks. But I'd rather demonstrate this instead of spending time arguing it, so... > > > If the only things we do for improving the distribution are to take stuff > > > from Ubuntu because, well, it’s here, we might as well stop developing > > > anything at all. > > Sure; obviously the right thing to do is to instead take stuff from GNOME > > and freedesktop.org without regard to integration with our existing system, > > because if Lennart says it's right it must be so. > Yes of course, because Debian is well-known for using fd.o and GNOME > software as is, without patching it ever, and adopting new technologies > blindly and very quickly, before they are well tested. There certainly have been cases of fd.o changes being dropped into Debian without dealing with the integration questions. mime -> .desktop is a prime example of this. .desktop is clearly far superior - but that doesn't mean it's ok to drop the existing stuff on the floor. So if your comment is a fair critique of upstart proponents, then mine is an equally fair critique of systemd proponents. > Have it ever occurred to you that people might want to see systemd as > default, not because Lennart said it, but because they think it is > better than any alternative? Better than upstart *in the way it > integrates with our existing system*, BTW. Oh, it absolutely has occurred to me. And has it occurred to you that the upstart proponents likewise feel that theirs is the better alternative? I'd be happy to hear you expand on how you think systemd integrates better with the existing system in Debian. I certainly don't see that this is the case - particularly when the systemd dbus services, which people have told me are so essential a component of the GNOME desktop going forward, had no tested backend that integrated with the Debian locations for system-level config files until I provided one for Ubuntu. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature