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

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Tino Reichardt <list-arch at mcmilk.de> wrote:
> * Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
>> Am Sat, 22 Sep 2012 10:15:16 +0200
>> schrieb fredbezies <fredbezies at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Don't you read the *important* word : testing ! Are you blind ?
>>
>> I read that. And what goes into [testing]? Yes! Bingo! Software version
>> which are released by upstream as *stable*. So yes, upstream was
>> supposed to have this tested before it went into Arch's [testing].
>>
>> *rofl*
>
> Yes...
>
>> And how do [testing] users update their system when initscripts will be
>> removed?
>>
>> How do you fix a borked Windoze systemd? Right, with a Windoze free
>> LiveCD. How do you fix a borked systemd system? Right, with a systemd
>> free LiveCD. *lol*
>>
>> > Are you stuck in 1690 or are we in the 2010's ?
>>
>> Even in the 2010's it can be better to stuck with 40 years old, well
>> tested software instead of switching to new crap.
>>
>> You don't consider that I'm not against new software and new versions,
>> but I'm against crap.
>
> FULL ACK,
>
> Thank you :)

... it's just a Plain Ol' Bug ... nothing special or unique here. it
happens, then it gets fixed, and life does in fact go on ... thus
sayeth the Almighty Creature in the Sky!

really, even the most "stable" of software is inevitably flawed; a few
months ago i was prevented from doing damn near any useful work due to
an OpenSSL regression:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1079535#p1079535
http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2771&user=guest&pass=guest

... but i think we all agree openssl is worth keeping around, yes?
such exceedingly high standards of "quality" and "stability" are
simply unrealistic.

systemd works pretty awesome for everything i've thrown at it, and
minus a few kinks here and there, flawless as well.  of course, YMMV,
but i'd surmise 98% of those having difficulties are simply making
some small error ... systemd, IME, pretty much does what you'd expect.

btw, per Allan's link, the guy who made himself more useful than any
of us -- ie, by reporting (gasp!) the bug and including a patch --
concluded with this little gem:

"[...]

PS: I've been using systemd since v188 (w/o sysvinit) for
desktop/laptops (and even in ramroots) and love it. The unit file
syntax is nice and intuitive and things mostly work great
out-of-the-box. This, is after several years of using Upstart, which
worked adequately, but still was not as flexible as it should've been,
and a was bit fragile.."

... just some food-for-thought is all.

-- 

C Anthony