On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:12:58PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:38:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > development (because unlike the systemd developers, the upstart developers > > aren't trying to sell anyone a bill of goods about how their existing units > > are perfect and nothing will ever need to be patched downstream). But there > Seems nicer to strive to never have differences in conf files. Then they > can be part of upstream instead of yet another file that will differ > between distributions. > I have not noticed that these systemd files differ between distributions > though. Care to show this? It's not a question of whether they *do* differ between distributions; it's a question of whether they *will* differ at some future point. The utopian vision painted by systemd upstream is colored by the fact that they only actually have to support Fedora and Red Hat, not a range of distributions; so having systemd units upstream works just fine *for them* as the only ones who are actually leveraging them heavily to date, but that's not at all proof that they will not need to be modified downstream. But, well, here's an example of people already managing to propose non-portable systemd units upstream - non-portable for reasons as absurd as a hard-coded path. https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2013-February/090369.html -- 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