Le 15/11/2014 15:40, Ralf Jung a écrit : > What you say could also be read as a plea against any kind of > integration, as this integration naturally provides a "best" combination > of tools, and it will be harder to exchange some of them. I would argue > that this is a trade-off. Personally, I am happy to know that the > combination of tools that make up a part of the low-level system, has > been tested and designed in exactly this constellation - as opposed to > the giant exploding test matrix that results from supporting several > variants of each tool.
I understand, and in fact, despite what I may sound like, I'm not against this type of integration. On the only machine I have with systemd installed (a sid desktop), I ditched ntp because, well, what's the point of having two packages doing the same thing, if the one that's already present does its job well ? But the haste to integrate so many things in such a short amount of time, the stubbornness (wontfix) that some upstream developers have sometimes exhibited (not unlike Gnome upstream), or the piece of code I saw (I'm not a developer, more a sysadmin, so I rarely dive into C code, only for debugging purposes), all of this gives me a bad feeling about systemd. And, did I mention that I *really* don't want binary logs ? :-P > I didn't read the code. Depending on where and how this happens, I can > understand that someone doesn't want to make a call that blocks > arbitrary long. So if you get a timeout, what else could you do? I don't know, like I said, I'm no developer. But the comment was clear on the fact that the developer deliberately chose not to wait on the syslog. For a piece of code which is supposed to feed the syslog, I find that choice illogic, to say the least. > I also find it hasty to judge systemd's code quality from a single > example. The analysis of Russ and several others suggest that actually, > systemd has a fairly high code quality. That's not something I can > comment on; but they do seem to be eager to get rid of old cruft (many > say, too eager), which certainly helps keeping your code clean. Sorry, english isn't my native language so maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't *judge* all of systemd's code to be of poor quality; but as for the little piece I looked at, I have a bad hunch about it. And the general "wontfix" attitude of the developers just add to that hunch. But again, we pull away from my first point - as a sysadmin, what I can see is that my systemd box has crippled text logs, and the point is that's not worthy of the quality that we're all accustomed to, and which made me choose Debian 15 years ago. Regards, -- Raphaël Halimi
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
