> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:20:33 +0100
> From: "Armin K." <kre...@email.com>
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] sysvinit programs
>
> On 12/13/2013 12:03 PM, akhiezer wrote:
> >> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:50:45 -0800
> >> From: Nathan Coulson <conat...@gmail.com>
> >> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] sysvinit programs
> >>
> > .
> > .
> >>
> >> A thought I was having about systemd vs sysvinit. If the books are
> >> being developed in parallel, we should probably try to use the same
> >> programs in each. ex:/ if we use pidof in procps-ng we should also
> >> use the pidof from procps in systemd. (The above is using the pidof
> >> from procps, but seemed like a good example to use).
> >>
> >
> >
> > - and so the (again, entirely predictable) crowbar-ing begins ...
> >
> >
> > Systemd folks are not interested in bidirectional influence: it's their
> > way or the highway (as they see it, anyhow; it's a bit risible). _When_
> > (not 'if') sysd folks make yet another deliberate contrived change such
> > that 'the sysd way' now uses program 'y' and deprecates - and deliberately
> > "now cannot use" - the related and formerly-used program 'x'; while
> > program 'x' and not 'y' has been in use in b/lfs; then you're saying that
> > b/lfs should switch over to program 'y'.
> >
> >
> > Are you seriously suggesting that b/lfs lets itself be led and pushed
> > around by the nose, by sysd folks, like that? Nice try, but you won't
> > fool everyone: not everyone will follow you into the darkness.
> >
>
> I don't really care about your stance about systemd or Lennart or
> anything else related to both of them, but I'll say that you are mostly
> wrong.
>
> In this case, systemd had nothing to do with it. [...]
Nobody's saying that it did. The post was addressing Nathan's suggestion.
You're opting for the 'straw man' approach - very transparent.
> [...] It's just that most
> major distributions have been moved away from sysvinit and it's major
> distributions, not systemd developers, who are suggesting/doing this.
>
> Fedora/Debian/SuSE developers maintain procps-ng and were happy to
> accept a program that fits in that package because it was *unmaintained*
> by sysvinit people (again, nobody from upstream seems to care about
> sysvinit because most major players have switched to systemd) but was
> still handy tool to someone. Same goes for sysvinit utils moved to
> util-linux package (sulogin, last, lastb and mesg).
>
> You can find out that it's distro developers and their users who want to
> use latest and greatest software, not some unmaintained stuff just
> because someone hates systemd. Again, if something still works and *you*
> think it works great, doesn't really mean everyone else agrees. Same
> goes other way arround.
>
- yadda yadda yadda. Your point is? You're just making statements that are
not related to the reply to Nathan's suggestion. It would be nice if you
even got the wrong end of the right stick.
> Systemd is waaay more than just a init system, [...]
Yes, that's the source of too many problems, now and in the future.
> [...] please try to remember that.
Heh, attempted condescension.
>
> <evil mode=on>In near future, systemd will hold an interface to kdbus, a
> replacement for current dbus and you will *need* to *use* systemd (not
You just don't get it, do you: such vision ...
> just pull its sources from tree) to actually use kdbus. I can't wait for
> that to happen just because people are still [...]
- so revenge is one of your motives ...
> [...] hating systemd (they have
> every right to do so) because of principle and thoughts of "being
> forced" to do something that everyone else seems to welcome.</evil>
- simple false statement.
>
> No offense.
- yeah, you're ok. ("Like being 'savaged' by a dead sheep".)
> --
> Note: My last name is not Krejzi.
- yeah but you're still not giving any info to folks, that don't already
know, what your surname actually _is_. Instead, to folks looking at your
messages 'cold', it can look like your sig is somehow trying to lure them
into some inane infantile riddle ('my first is in piddle, but is not in
riddle, ...'). Do you want to inform people what your surname _is_? If so,
state it clearly.
regards,
akhiezer
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
