On Fri, 20.02.15 11:04, Dennis Gilmore (dennis(a)ausil.us) wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:36:17 +0100
Lennart Poettering <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 20.02.15 16:24, Peter Robinson (pbrobinson(a)gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > >> > Sorry for the inconvenience and feel free to add bugs to the
> > >> > tracker, which are caused by systemd changes and have to be
> > >> > fixed in other components.
> > >>
> > >> Are you going to start notifying deve@ of upcoming changes that
> > >> may impact other areas of the distro too rather than just land
> > >> them without notification or discussion?
> > >
> > > Oh god, stop this, will you?
> >
> > No, I mean the above in general for general changes you make that
> > affect the distro as a whole. You generally land them without
> > notification.
>
> I "generally" do that? Can you be more precise?
A recent example, systemd decided that os-release needed to be moved
to /usr/lib/ I did not see any notification on devel@ nor was i
contacted directly. the first I heard of it was a third party person
filing a bug against fedora-release
While moving it is great, it's not really that important to move it.
I mean, moving it is useful in the context of stateless systems that
can boot up with empty /etc. However, Fedora is so far away from that,
that we have tons of other things to fix first, before the os-release
move would start to matter.
We haven't posted a feature to make Fedora stateless in this sense,
and hence also didn't ask for /etc/os-release to be moved. There are
some upstream things to work on before we can propose such a Fedora
change.
So, thank you very much for moving it! But this is neither a change
that would really need coordination, nor something we pushed for from
our side.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat