On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Genes MailLists <li...@sapience.com> wrote:
> The kernel has undergone more updates than systemd ... all for very > good reasons - making it better and solving problems. Sure the same > would apply to systemd. > > We also go to some lengths to make sure that there is a fall back kernel on the system by making sure the update kernel is _installed_ in parallel with the running kernel and not _updated_ in the rpm packaging sense. And optionally you can configure your system to hold N older kernels (I have N=6 for testing purposes currently cuz I'm that sort of crazy) If an update kernel causes a serious regression on your hardware, for whatever reason, you'll still have your current kernel to fallback to. I very much doubt our kernel maintainers would feel comfortable doing the updates that they do if we didn't leave a fallback kernel on system as an alternative entry in the grub boot menu. Sure its hidden by default and you have to do a special action to get access to that boot menu, but its there as a safety net. We have no such fallback stance in place for the init system. I think that is an important consideration that you have to factor in here. Do you want to walk people through a recovery process where an init update failed for some unexpected reason? I look forward to seeing everyone cheerleading for a systemd update to be pushed to F15 to sign up for #fedora help hours to deal with the unforeseen consequences of that advocacy. . -jef
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
