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 09-06-2011, 08:39 AM
Michał Piotrowski
 
Default http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd

Hi,

2011/9/6 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@gmail.com>:
> On 09/06/2011 02:55 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Reindl Harald (h.reindl@thelounge.net) said:
>>> the alpha was release and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd
>>> is at 0% - why will F16 released WITHOUT making the system clean which
>>> should have been done for F15
>> Perhaps the feature owner should update it, as per the policy.
>
> I was planning on updating that 0% after beta ( as opposed to having to
> go through all the components twice or more and incrementally increase
> that number for no purpose).
>
> Once we have released beta you either have native systemd unit for the
> component or you wont for the F16 whole release cycle and % number on a
> wiki page aint gonna change that.
>
> Live media + default next next install should be covered except for
> openvpn and wpa_supplicant.

I created a service for wpa_supplicant. Is there something wrong with it?

>
> That in it self is an acceptable milestone to have reached in my books
> in one release cycle as in all hands out media + desktop install have
> been converted and are covered.

Excellent job

>
> Depending on the rest of the components and their maintainers rest might
> take sometime on converting for variety of reasons.
>
> JBG
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>



--
Best regards,
Michal

http://eventhorizon.pl/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-06-2011, 09:28 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd

Jhann B. Gumundsson wrote:
> There is one thing I have learned ( so far in the conversion process )
> and that is that the current model surrounding maintainers and
> maintainership followed by various policies surrounding that model which
> we use here in Fedora as in maintainers "Own" their components (
> ownership model ) cannot deal with large scale changes like systemd
> introduces amongst other things and I will go so far to say that module
> effectively became outdated when Fedora stopped being hobby distro (
> which happened the instance people/corporates started depending on
> fedora and the components it ships which kinda says it never was ) made
> up of relatively few components with relatively few maintainers and an
> hand full of users but that discussion belongs in another thread.

That's exactly why I'm saying that global changes should be done globally,
not by each package's maintainer.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-06-2011, 09:40 PM
Al Dunsmuir
 
Default http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd

On Tuesday, September 6, 2011, 5:28:34 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jhann B. Gumundsson wrote:
>> There is one thing I have learned ( so far in the conversion process )
>> and that is that the current model surrounding maintainers and
>> maintainership followed by various policies surrounding that model which
>> we use here in Fedora as in maintainers "Own" their components (
>> ownership model ) cannot deal with large scale changes like systemd
>> introduces amongst other things and I will go so far to say that module
>> effectively became outdated when Fedora stopped being hobby distro (
>> which happened the instance people/corporates started depending on
>> fedora and the components it ships which kinda says it never was ) made
>> up of relatively few components with relatively few maintainers and an
>> hand full of users but that discussion belongs in another thread.

> That's exactly why I'm saying that global changes should be done globally,
> not by each package's maintainer.

I agree, provided you mean "not necessarily by each package's maintainer".

In some cases, folks working on the common goal do need the assistance of
the package maintainer. Alternatively, the package maintainer may be able
to make the required changes in a timely manner on their own.

Package maintainers must not be allowed to emulate King Canute and attempt
to hold back the tide of change.



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-07-2011, 07:19 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd

On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 15:46 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> the alpha was release and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd
> is at 0% - why will F16 released WITHOUT making the system clean which
> should have been done for F15
>
> How many releases will this dirty mix of systemd/sysvinit(lsb in the
> distribution exist until the OS can be called as "clean" like before
> F15?

The feature page has not been edited since June. It's often the case
that you can't entirely rely on those completion %ages.

The tracker bug - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713562 -
is a better place to monitor progress in this case.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-10-2011, 12:05 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd

Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> I agree, provided you mean "not necessarily by each package's maintainer".
>
> In some cases, folks working on the common goal do need the assistance of
> the package maintainer. Alternatively, the package maintainer may be able
> to make the required changes in a timely manner on their own.

Of course, diligent package maintainers should be able to do the changes. We
just should not wait forever for the lazy, too busy or simply recalcitrant
ones.

> Package maintainers must not be allowed to emulate King Canute and attempt
> to hold back the tide of change.

+1

Kevin Kofler

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 PM.

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