Lists (12024-07-15): > For the most part I understand your point of view. As a matter of fact I am > not even opposed to systemd as such [1], but over the years I have had my > share of problems that in the end proved to be caused by some transition to > systemd. This has made me a bit wary of it.
A complex transition will always have bugs. Even when the target of the transition is undoubtedly the best, which is not the case here. > That might be, but to me notices about things like x-initrd.attach not being > recognized do point in the direction of incompatibility or at least > differences in the way cryptsetup is handled that shouldn't happen for > something that is relied upon by so many. I do not know what you are referring to when you talk about x-initrd.attach, you were too terse. But I notice that you talked about it in the same paragraph that you reported the inaccurate information that systemd has its own implementation of cryptsetup, so I suggest you might want to check if what you read about is is not inaccurate too. Anyway, remember that x- means that it is a non-standard option. > To be clear: I wasn't aiming to restart the heated discussions on systemd on > this list again! That is long behind us. It was just a personal feeling of > someone who has been bitten once again by changes with systemd involved. In > this case it was more of a d-i thing than a systemd thing anyway. There is little doubt that along with the enhancement compared to the bunch of unreliable shell scripts, systemd brought its own set of trouble in the form of a resolute break from the Unix tradition and habits. It is a tragedy that modern boot and monitoring systems that respect the tradition were not mature enough at the right time. Regards, -- Nicolas George
