On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> * IMHO the initial upstream default didn't make sense for Fedora > > On this specific change, I'm not sure the *updated* default makes sense > either. It still is quite constrained. > >> * Perhaps after beta but before final we ping maintainers of >> "important" packages asking what big changes have happened? Or >> someone just goes thru the release notes for them all and proposes a >> list of them? > > I think this is good, but probably too late for some kinds of > decisions. > >> * Your brilliant idea here. > > I think that we should have a general policy for packagers of > far-reaching infrastructure packages (systemd, glibc, kernel, whatever) > that any new restrictions or constraints should be disabled by default > in Fedora, regardless of upstream defaults, until we're able to have a > conversation — here, in the edition WGs, and/or in FESCo, as > appropriate for the particular change.
Like the very poorly handled KillUserProcess setting, it's a deliberately added, generally unnecessary, and not particularly welcome systemd "feature" that provides a limited resource management benefit in return for breaking numerous existing workflows. The intentions may have been good, but the unclear and difficult to trace failures when it is activated mean that it should have been left off by default upstream, and it should be left off by default in Fedora. It should be activated only as an option, not by default. > -- > Matthew Miller > <mat...@fedoraproject.org> > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
