[arch-general] testing/systemd 191-1 failed to boot

Tom Gundersen teg at jklm.no
Sun Sep 23 04:39:03 EDT 2012

Hi Heiko,

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
> Why am I not surprised?

Why should you be? I'm not. I don't think anyone finds it surprising
that software has bugs, or that actively developed software has the
occasional regression. It will happen from time to time, even with
systemd. It will happen more with systemd than with sysvinit. The
reason is that sysvinit is no longer being developed, and no changes
means no regressions. No surprises here.

> Yes, binary init system is so much better than a script based init
> system.

The correct comparison would be with sysvinit and not with initscript
(as the bug is in PID1 and not in any of the helpers/serivce files).

> And Poetterix is so damn good, so advanced, such an evolution
> and so much better than the common and over 40 years well tested
> sysvinit.
> Come on systemd fanboys, here you have the first example. There's more
> to come. I'll get my popcorn.

I hope you realise that when you speak of "Poetterix" and "fanboys"
you are being a troll (there is no "opinion" in here, just inflamatory
rhetoric). You are trying to make people angry rather than contribute
to the discussion.

As a whole, your message did not add anything useful, as you merely
said "I told you so". We all are able to see that there was a bug, we
all are able to see that this is very unfortunate. However, no one
expected bugs never to happen in testing. It happens in all software,
from the kernel up. We obviously strive to make it a rare occurrence,
but especially architecture-specific bugs might be hard to catch.

I'd respectfully request you to stay on-topic and constructive in your
future contributions to this mailinglist.



More information about the arch-general mailing list