Hi, Norbert Preining: > How is it possible that: > * systemd maintainers (Kay Sievers) considers an obvious bug in > his code that locks out users something not in need to be cared > for? > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 > It's not "an obvious bug", it's primarily an issue of interpreting whether a generic boot parameter like "debug" is intended for just the kernel, or the whole system. Linux has other programs (and a few kernel modules) whose equivalent of verbose=999 will prevent them from working. That's not new. The question is essentially whether requiring "systemd.log_target=null" (to exclude systemd's debug output from the kernel log buffer) is reasonable. If the maintainer regards this as a design issue which thus should not be discussed in a bug report, that's their prerogative. Calling Kai a "d*ck" over it (see comment#11) is not going to help. I have no sympathy whatsover for people who complain about the systemd team's hostility when *they* are the one who start the badmouthing. > * systemd maintainers (Lennart Poettering) does not care for > segfaults in his code, even if it happens in pid 1. > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74589 > Oh come on. It's a nontrivial amount of work to reproduce that bug. "Does not care for" is not at all the same as "is not willing to spend the effort on something that's not one of his use cases and wants somebody else to provide a patch". "Does not care for" would be "is unwilling to accept a patch for this problem". That's not what's happening. > * several kernel maintainer propose (not completely serious, but > it shows the general opinion), to add > + BUG_ON(!strcmp(current->comm, "systemd")); URLs please. -- -- Matthias Urlichs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature