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

Re: Challenge to you: Voice your concerns regarding systemd upstream



On 26/09/14 16:09, Miles Fidelman wrote:
So let's see:
- the technical committee selects takes a vote that essentially imposes
systemd on all of the upstream developers and packagers

The technical committee has no authority (and limited soft power) with respect to what *upstream* developers (i.e. the people who write the software that Debian members then choose to package for inclusion in Debian) do or don't do. It has bounded authority and power to decide what work is expected to be done or not done in Debian, and thus over what is provided *downstream* (i.e. to Debian's users).

And a sizeable chunk of the upstream work for *compatibility with systemd* has already been done in response to events in Fedora, Arch, OpenSUSE, etc. At this point, it seems to me that any upstream who hasn't already done something to improve their software's compatibility with systemd (if it even needs any work to achieve such a thing) is more likely to say "bug reports only reproducible on systemd are your problem, not mine" than "oh, well, if Debian has gone with it as well maybe I'll have a look".

- systemd seems to have some rather frequently changing APS's - to the
extent that systemd-shim lags well behind

My impression is that systemd-shim's task is not "implement all of /lib/systemd/systemd's interfaces" but "implement enough of /lib/systemd/systemd's interfaces that other parts of systemd-the-suite such as systemd-logind can operate acceptably without needing to run /lib/systemd/systemd".

systemd-shim broke with respect to systemd suite versions >= 205 because systemd-logind's dependencies on interfaces of /lib/systemd/systemd expanded for reasons related to compatibility with the "single writer, single hierarchy" version of the Linux kernel's cgroups interface.

- 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".


Reply to: