On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:23:51 +0400, L wrote: > I wont be really upset if I'll lose upstart, I can clean systemd as I need, > but the idea is wrong. > Systemd is just a project, project which may tomorrow be changed,
And Upstart is not? > so why all others have to follow. You also follow in many other similar situations when components are replaced or upgraded, and you either cannot avoid that, or perhaps sometimes you simply haven't noticed. Even normal applications sometimes change fundamentally between version 1.0 and 2.0, causing interruptions, affecting or interchanging their user-base. > It should be like selinux, which can be easily disabled "selinux=0". > > That is what I think. Not feasible. Where to start? Where to stop? Only theoretically you can try to keep _everything_ alive (including but not limited to forks, legacy software, abandonded APIs for previously popular libs) and shipped with a distribution, but who will do all the work (including the re-/testing)? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
