Re: Challenge to you: Voice your concerns regarding systemd upstream
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 09/26/2014 at 12:44 PM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 26/09/14 16:09, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> - but the resulting impacts should be taken up with each and
>> every upstream developer?
>
> As far as I can see, the issue that people are suggesting should
> be taken up with upstream developers is "application XYZ has
> annoying and seemingly unnecessary dependencies on interfaces of
> systemd, making it hard to keep systemd off my systems".
The trouble with recommending to take that upstream is that it's
entirely legitimate for a program to depend on externally-provided
interfaces, and indeed in the conceptual ideal a program should neither
know nor care what provides those interfaces.
It would be better, from a design perspective, to fix the unnecessary
dependency problems at the core - that is, in systemd - rather than
requiring all of the upstreams to make changes in response to changes in
systemd.
Only if systemd upstream will be uncooperative, and refuse to fix the
problems, would taking it to the multiple upstreams make sense - and
even then, forking systemd or providing another source for the systemd
interfaces would probably be a better solution. (Though still not as
good as fixing the design at the core.)
If you're saying to take the problem to the individual upstreams, then
you are effectively saying that you believe that systemd upstream
already is uncooperative, and already is refusing to fix the problems.
Which doesn't seem consistent with the other positions I think I've seen
taken by the people I think I recall seeing advocate that these issues
be taken to the individual upstreams.
- --
The Wanderer
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=QWrw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: