On 07/31/2013 11:57 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM, zxq9<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> On 07/30/2013 10:26 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia<[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Tom H<[log in to unmask]>   wrote:
>>>> Thanks, good link. I'm just concerned it's going to cause build
>>>> problems for *every single open source daemon* as their SRPM's or
>>>> .spec files need to have two sets of options, one for the older SysV
>>>> init scripts and one for systemd, or need to be split to two different
>>>> .spec files. This is going to be so much fun!
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>> Very true. Similar to some current Fedora spec files:
>>>
>>> %if 0%{?rhel}
>>> ...
>>> %endif
>>> %if 0%{?fedora}
>>> ...
>>> %endif
>>>
>>> An eyesore and a mess; until December 2020...
>>
>> tl;dr, Relevant Fedora thread first:
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-October/thread.html#172159
>>
>> Reminds me of a dismal post from October:
>> http://zxq9.com/archives/711
>
> I was only commenting on the more complex and unreadable spec files.
> Otherwise I'm happy about systemd and journald. In short, the kernel
> has evolved, the applications have evolved, why not the init system?

Its not that the init system can't do with some modernization, its that 
the new system has a severe case of featuritis that is spawning little 
eddies of nonlocalized complexity all over the place. Modernizing a 
system and tossing everything that's come before in the interest of a 
deliberately incompatible rewrite are different things. Remember HAL?