On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Koen Kooi <k...@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote: > > Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 14:28 heeft Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> het > volgende geschreven: > >> On 20 March 2014 12:44, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: >>> You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but >>> do not expect it to weigh much that way, at least in my eyes, based on >>> that you are not even a maintainer as far as I know. >> >> One good reason: systemd reads the LSB headers. > > As well as other inits that support sysv mode.
This init script is adding support for sysv and no more. This is also indicated in the first line of the commit message. I am sorry, but I will not test it systemd and with other systems. You are free to test it with everything in the world out there, and provide a more intelligent change and void my work. This is what I call not pragmatic. It is not like incremental improvement is not useful because it does not do all the things in the world right away. This is clearly communicated in the commit message what it is for. For SysV, this is not any problem, it works fine. No one has revealed a real issue with that so far as far as I can tell. So why block a feature that was meant for something just because someone cannot test on everything and/or does not want? What is being read here in my understand is, "everything or nothing". This is not pragmatic. Please notice that perfection is the enemy of good. So my bottom line, feel free to reject this feature in favor of having nothing instead of something. Unless someone can come up with a rebuttal that it is not working for the intended and documentation use case, I am not willing to change it, sorry. It would be pointless because I could not test it anyway, and I will not send blind changes like that. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
