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

Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...

Laurent Bigonville wrote:
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> a écrit :

Steve McIntyre wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Martin Read wrote:
On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
It doesn't need these code paths.  The library doesn't do
anything unless you do have the software actually running which
the library makes useable --- at least that's what was said.

Of course, not all cases are the same, yet in this case, the
library shouldn't be installed unless the software it is for is
Gentoo and Funtoo are ----> over there, just like they were
months ago when you first started complaining about systemd on

If you move over to using them instead of Debian, you'll probably
be happier (because you'll have more control over what software
runs on your systems and how it's configured) and the Debian
maintainers will probably be happier (because there will be one
fewer person haranguing them for refusing to embrace
combinatorial explosion).

Everyone wins.
Right.  This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite the
rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and going
Various people have tried to explain how a binary distribution like
Debian works (build packages with all options included by defauls)
and how shared libraries work on Linux (all the libraries need to
be there to satisfy symbol resolution at run time, even if none of
the code is ever used). When those explanations fell on deaf ears,
people have resorted to analogy. That was clearly a waste of time

These are standard "rules" that have existed for many years, there
is no rewriting going on at all. Instead, it seems there are people
who won't, or don't want to, understand explanations when given. For
people who claim to have technical backgrounds, that's a surprising
(and very frustrating) problem.

Yeah... the Unix way... which systemd and it's pieces violate in so
many ways.
Surprisingly 10th of different executables talking to each other using
a common IPC mechanism (dbus here) seems to be really "unixy" to me...

First off, we're talking about the hairball that is systemd, not the one specific piece of the ecosystem that is DBUS.

Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're talking about a well developed philosophy of designing things that dates back to Ken Thompson, et. al (c.f., "The UNIX Programming Environment,"or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy).

Having said that, DBUS does seem to fit within the "UNIX way" - as a component that "does one thing well."

But again, we're not talking about DBUS, we're talking about systemd - except to the extent to the extent that DBUS is part of the systemd hairball (I forget, is DBUS now part of the systemd source tree, the same way that udev is?).

Miles Fidelman

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

Reply to: