On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jeng...@inai.de> wrote: > On Sunday 2012-12-30 15:02, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > >>On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 03:30:08PM -0500, nick black wrote: >>> - at some point, either debian or the derivative might lurch in a new >>> direction. in either case, carefully-crafted, minimal new >>> TARGET_-specific code (or however you choose to do it) can mirror the >>> divergence. all scripts continue to work. >> >> At this point derevative should stop and think. Is this diversion really >>needed (hint: almost never is)? What advantages this diversion brings, if >>any? > > Diversity, of course. > >>If it's a good idea, why upstream did not go this way? > > Sometimes, upstream(s) are seen as uncooperative, or simply going a > "boring" way -
The only really boring thing is alternatives like: /etc/HOSTNAME /etc/hostname /etc/sysconfig/network :: HOSTNAME= > derivates like going where no upstream has gone > before. There is not always just a single answer to a given problem. > That is why there is not only sysvinit or just systemd. What you say here does not really apply in this context. Diversity to try something new or in a way that has the potential to develop a new way to solve a problem is a nice thing which we surely would want to support. But needless and trivial random legacy locations of the same config data, which just confuses everybody is not a goal at all for the systemd source tree/build sys support. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
