FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-11-2011, 08:57 AM
Reindl Harald
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

Am 11.07.2011 04:51, schrieb Matthew Garrett:

>> I truly truly truly hope so... but at the end of the day... I
>> simply can't allow a new, untested (in a business environment)
>> package destabilize a technology that is used by a large number
>> of our community...
>
> If it's impossible to make NFS work sensibly with systemd then obviously
> we'd revert it. But I don't believe that that's the case, and nothing
> you've said in this thread has changed my mind there. It's clearly
> possible to get NFS working. The question is whether it's possible to do
> so in a way that matches your expectations of how users want NFS to
> behave, and that's not an issue that results in any destabalisation

my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that
widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd
BEFORE systemd replaced upstart

the acceptance and bugfree-state could have been MUCH better
if all services would be converted before the switch because
in this case probably some improvements would have been done
on systemd side

what happended was:
* systemd is pushed
* most services are not converted
* many services have open questions how to go forward with systemd
* what do if some services CAN NOT be converted fully?

this is simply bad on every point of view and point 4 would be a reason
to improve systemd as it is intended to replace SysV/LSB-services and
"in systemd world" is not a good argument if things are not working
properly


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 11:11 AM
Florian Müllner
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

2011/7/11 Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net>


my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that

widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd

BEFORE systemd replaced upstart

Given that Fedora only used upstart with existing SysV scripts, upstart should not have been included in the first place according to that argument. Yet you want to stick with an init system which does not have a single native service, because some services are used through systemd's SysV compatibility? Sorry, but that's hardly a credible position, it just makes you look biased against systemd.


Florian

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 12:00 PM
Reindl Harald
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

Am 11.07.2011 13:11, schrieb Florian Müllner:
> 2011/7/11 Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net <mailto:h.reindl@thelounge.net>>
>
> my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that
> widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd
> BEFORE systemd replaced upstart
>
> Given that Fedora only used upstart with existing SysV scripts, upstart should not have
> been included in the first place according to that argument. Yet you want to stick with
> an init system which does not have a single native service, because some services are
> used through systemd's SysV compatibility? Sorry, but that's hardly a credible
> position, it just makes you look biased against systemd

why does no one understand me here?

the problem i see is that systemd is pushed with a stable update
while this time are open discussions how getting important
services work native with systemd

this are things that should have been worked out BEFORE
systemd was pushed to a stable release to get a much better
overview if things working as expected, finding bugs and
maybe needed improvements in systemd and AFTER that systemd
AND the with fedora shipped services pushing to a GA release

what happened is "we are replacing the old init-system and after
that we take a look if all pakcage-maintainers can live with
the new one"

the qualitiy of a software intended to replace long time
working things is much better if all this things are tested
instead release/push and HOPE that sometimes later all works


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 02:03 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

On Mon, 11.07.11 10:57, Reindl Harald (h.reindl@thelounge.net) wrote:

> Am 11.07.2011 04:51, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
>
> >> I truly truly truly hope so... but at the end of the day... I
> >> simply can't allow a new, untested (in a business environment)
> >> package destabilize a technology that is used by a large number
> >> of our community...
> >
> > If it's impossible to make NFS work sensibly with systemd then obviously
> > we'd revert it. But I don't believe that that's the case, and nothing
> > you've said in this thread has changed my mind there. It's clearly
> > possible to get NFS working. The question is whether it's possible to do
> > so in a way that matches your expectations of how users want NFS to
> > behave, and that's not an issue that results in any destabalisation
>
> my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that
> widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd
> BEFORE systemd replaced upstart

It's a bit of a chicken of egg problem.

I actually sent patches which cleaned up part of the NFS stuff to Steve
(for example, socket activation patches for rpcbind), but he declined to
apply them. With those patches at least some of the complexity would go
away, as rpcbind would simply be available, and started as soon as it is
needed, copying what MacOS has been doing in the area of NFS for a while.

If systemd isn't in, people won't wake up, it's that easy.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 04:02 PM
Steve Dickson
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

On 07/11/2011 10:03 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 11.07.11 10:57, Reindl Harald (h.reindl@thelounge.net) wrote:
>
>> Am 11.07.2011 04:51, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
>>
>>>> I truly truly truly hope so... but at the end of the day... I
>>>> simply can't allow a new, untested (in a business environment)
>>>> package destabilize a technology that is used by a large number
>>>> of our community...
>>>
>>> If it's impossible to make NFS work sensibly with systemd then obviously
>>> we'd revert it. But I don't believe that that's the case, and nothing
>>> you've said in this thread has changed my mind there. It's clearly
>>> possible to get NFS working. The question is whether it's possible to do
>>> so in a way that matches your expectations of how users want NFS to
>>> behave, and that's not an issue that results in any destabalisation
>>
>> my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that
>> widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd
>> BEFORE systemd replaced upstart
>
> It's a bit of a chicken of egg problem.
>
> I actually sent patches which cleaned up part of the NFS stuff to Steve
> (for example, socket activation patches for rpcbind), but he declined to
> apply them.
No. The community rejected them because
* They were to evasive which made the code unmaintainable esp
WRT to security fixes.
* You rejected the idea of put the code in a standalone library.
* They were too Fedora specific
* Code stability was also a concern

Here is the thread:
http://marc.info/?t=127950663200001&r=1&w=2

steved.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 04:15 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

On Mon, 11.07.11 12:02, Steve Dickson (SteveD@redhat.com) wrote:

>
>
>
> On 07/11/2011 10:03 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 11.07.11 10:57, Reindl Harald (h.reindl@thelounge.net) wrote:
> >
> >> Am 11.07.2011 04:51, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
> >>
> >>>> I truly truly truly hope so... but at the end of the day... I
> >>>> simply can't allow a new, untested (in a business environment)
> >>>> package destabilize a technology that is used by a large number
> >>>> of our community...
> >>>
> >>> If it's impossible to make NFS work sensibly with systemd then obviously
> >>> we'd revert it. But I don't believe that that's the case, and nothing
> >>> you've said in this thread has changed my mind there. It's clearly
> >>> possible to get NFS working. The question is whether it's possible to do
> >>> so in a way that matches your expectations of how users want NFS to
> >>> behave, and that's not an issue that results in any destabalisation
> >>
> >> my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that
> >> widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd
> >> BEFORE systemd replaced upstart
> >
> > It's a bit of a chicken of egg problem.
> >
> > I actually sent patches which cleaned up part of the NFS stuff to Steve
> > (for example, socket activation patches for rpcbind), but he declined to
> > apply them.
> No. The community rejected them because

Nope, you did. In a personal mail on Wed 11 Aug 2010.

But really, this is a pointless game...

> * They were to evasive which made the code unmaintainable esp
> WRT to security fixes.

Uh? It's an addition of 30 lines of very simple code. In fact if it had
been merged it probably would have been the simplest code in all of the
NFS stack.

> * They were too Fedora specific

systemd is not a fedora-only project. It is available in a number of
other distributions, in a number of them default, and will be the
default in opensuse too, in the next release.

> * Code stability was also a concern

Really, for 30 lines of code? And where have these been expressed?

I take it if I update the patch and repost it this would not change your
minds and would be rejected again?

A pity,

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 05:20 PM
Steve Dickson
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

On 07/11/2011 12:15 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 11.07.11 12:02, Steve Dickson (SteveD@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/11/2011 10:03 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11.07.11 10:57, Reindl Harald (h.reindl@thelounge.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 11.07.2011 04:51, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
>>>>
>>>>>> I truly truly truly hope so... but at the end of the day... I
>>>>>> simply can't allow a new, untested (in a business environment)
>>>>>> package destabilize a technology that is used by a large number
>>>>>> of our community...
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's impossible to make NFS work sensibly with systemd then obviously
>>>>> we'd revert it. But I don't believe that that's the case, and nothing
>>>>> you've said in this thread has changed my mind there. It's clearly
>>>>> possible to get NFS working. The question is whether it's possible to do
>>>>> so in a way that matches your expectations of how users want NFS to
>>>>> behave, and that's not an issue that results in any destabalisation
>>>>
>>>> my main critic on systemd shipped als default with F15 is that
>>>> widely used services like NFS are not converted to systemd
>>>> BEFORE systemd replaced upstart
>>>
>>> It's a bit of a chicken of egg problem.
>>>
>>> I actually sent patches which cleaned up part of the NFS stuff to Steve
>>> (for example, socket activation patches for rpcbind), but he declined to
>>> apply them.
>> No. The community rejected them because
>
> Nope, you did. In a personal mail on Wed 11 Aug 2010.
>
> But really, this is a pointless game...
>
>> * They were to evasive which made the code unmaintainable esp
>> WRT to security fixes.
>
> Uh? It's an addition of 30 lines of very simple code. In fact if it had
> been merged it probably would have been the simplest code in all of the
> NFS stack.
>
>> * They were too Fedora specific
>
> systemd is not a fedora-only project. It is available in a number of
> other distributions, in a number of them default, and will be the
> default in opensuse too, in the next release.
Good to know... I'll talk their NFS maintainer to see how
they are handling the systemd conversation... What other
distro are planing to use it?

>
>> * Code stability was also a concern
>
> Really, for 30 lines of code? And where have these been expressed?
>
> I take it if I update the patch and repost it this would not change your
> minds and would be rejected again?

The main problem, in which you chose to ignore in this reply, is:

>> * You rejected the idea of put the code in a standalone library.

If you put your code in a standalone library making it much more
manageable went it comes to configuration issues, go a head
and resubmit it... You'll have a much better chance of acceptance...

steved.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-11-2011, 05:50 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

On Mon, 11.07.11 13:20, Steve Dickson (SteveD@redhat.com) wrote:

> > systemd is not a fedora-only project. It is available in a number of
> > other distributions, in a number of them default, and will be the
> > default in opensuse too, in the next release.
>
> Good to know... I'll talk their NFS maintainer to see how
> they are handling the systemd conversation... What other
> distro are planing to use it?

I lost track of this a bit, but MeeGo already switched, and Mandriva did
too afair. OpenSUSE will switch in the coming release.

Gentoo, Debian, Arch have it in the disro, but not default.

Or to turn this around: of the big ones only Ubuntu currently has no
official plans, but I am confident this will change too eventually
(hopefully as soon as their next LTS release is out).

> >> * You rejected the idea of put the code in a standalone library.
>
> If you put your code in a standalone library making it much more
> manageable went it comes to configuration issues, go a head
> and resubmit it... You'll have a much better chance of acceptance...

Well, this has been requested before, and we'll eventuall provide that,
but at the moment we ask prople to embed this code. To make that
unproblematic it is really trivial code (just parses two env vars
basically), and portable, and liberally licensed.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-13-2011, 08:50 PM
Olav Vitters
 
Default systemd: Is it wrong? -> wrong order

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 07:50:58PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 11.07.11 13:20, Steve Dickson (SteveD@redhat.com) wrote:
> > they are handling the systemd conversation... What other
> > distro are planing to use it?
>
> I lost track of this a bit, but MeeGo already switched, and Mandriva did
> too afair. OpenSUSE will switch in the coming release.

+ next Mageia will have it (version 2)

> Gentoo, Debian, Arch have it in the disro, but not default.

--
Regards,
Olav
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org