On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Tom H <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:25 AM, James Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> We're basically going to be stuck with systemd for release 7. It's
>>> wedged
>>> into all the upstream Fedora daemons, sometimes with a crowbar and a can
>>> of
>>> Jiffy Lube. There are some serious problems that it resolves (such as
>>> demons
>>> dying off, and requiring some sort of master daemon to make sure they
>>> get
>>> restarted as needed). If you want to affect choices like that, then you
>>> need
>>> to get into the developer cycles with Fedora and affect changes
>>> upstream.
>>
>> Given how fully-fleshed out systemd is and the momentum that it has, I
>> don't see how getting involved in Fedora or further upstream could
>> change the basic thrust of systemd.
>
> Oh, yes, I didn't mean to to suggest we'd have a lot of choice about systemd
> coming down the pike at *this* point. Current Fedora releases have already
> discarded the sysvinit package, it looks like a done deal for the pending
> release 7 from our favorite upstream Linux vendor. I meant that if we wanted
> to affect changes like this, we have to be involved in the Fedora releases
> as developers, and users, and critics of what are the software candidates fo
> rthe next release.

I'd misunderstood you, sorry.

Let's assume that you'd been involved in systemd from the beginning,
what would you have proposed to change?