Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 8, 2016 4:43 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
In reply to: Distributors ponder a systemd change by pizza
Parent article: Distributors ponder a systemd change

Until screen and tmux were updated for a start.

to post comments

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 8, 2016 5:50 UTC (Wed) by rengolin (guest, #48414) [Link] (3 responses)

Aren't we picking favourites here? How much longer should people wait for those to change?

Any stable distro can protect you from this change (I use Arch), so I don't see this as a big deal at all.

The only slight problem I see is that they should have worked directly with those more affected (ex. tmux and screen) *before* defining what the interface looks like, to avoid long lasting design problems. Though, this is again, chicken and egg, as defining who you talk to first is not easy.

All in all, noisy and a tad inefficient, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 9, 2016 9:33 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link] (2 responses)

You don't "wait for other to change" -- you implement.

And this means, if you want to change the default there, to PROVIDE A FUCKING FIX for afflicted programs such as nohup, screen and tmux. Even if it's your forked version of it, and furthermore ANNOUNCE IN ADVANCE to your (biggest) downstreams when you're changing the default.

I can see the reasoning behind what systemd did. But I absolutely object the way they did and communicated it.

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 9, 2016 14:10 UTC (Thu) by johannbg (guest, #65743) [Link] (1 responses)

If component A exposes a bug in component B ( regardless if that bug was triggered by changes in that project defaults or simple encountered when used in conjunction with it ) then the community that makes up component B is responsible for fixing it ( bugs are fixed where they belong ) just like any other bug that get's filed yeah sure all patches welcome but there is absolutely no obligation from project A, it's community or developers or just reporters in general that discovered the bug and decided to report it, to fix it as well so you must be a very special individual if you really think or expect that an upstream that flips a switch in their own project defaults, run around the whole internet to fix every breakage and bugs in whatever corner of the software galaxy which are in no relation to their project o_O.

And with regards to announcements it's expected that a downstream package maintainer(s) are in good relation with upstream ( which all the major distribution Arch/CoreOS/Debian/Fedora/Gentoo/OpenSuse/Ubuntu etc are with systemd ) and follow upstream changes closely ( which they do ) to be prepared for changes like these ( which they where ) and start dialogs with downstream community should they feel necessary to do so ( which is far as I know all of them did, some before the official release of systemd 230 version, others after ).

So the question here is how come you missed that discussion in your community ( which usually indicates people that miss such discussions aren't active contributes in their communities or part of it at all as in just end users ) .

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 9, 2016 18:59 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

>If component A exposes a bug in component B

If.