On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, seth vidal <skvi...@fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > > I agree with one section of your argument: > > arguments which are just "I'm not used to this" are bad arguments. > > > > Many of the arguments presented in this and other threads do not boil > > down to that. If you believe them to do so, Jeff, then you're presenting > > a straw man as I'm sure you're aware. > > I disagree this thread specifically boils down to familiarity > argument. Shall I break down the original post point by point? ... snip ... > - transparency of code due to shell use > > how is shell more transparent? from my meager understanding of > systemd we are actually getting better more systematic failure and > logging information from systemd unit files than we get from the > complexity of shell scripts. Are we not? > Up until now, my package is architecture independent. >From what I understand, I will now have to provide some systemd application that is coded in C? If that is the case, I now have to create an RPM per-architecture and loose my architecture independence. True or false?
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
