4 ms·

I'm not defending systemd here, but in general, if your files have standardized headers that indicate the wrong information, how is that anyone else's problem?

lsaferite 10y ago
Seeing that no one is apparently using the information until systemd decided to, it seems like systemd being pedantic and the problem.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  And while i can't pull another example out of a hat right now, i am sure i have seen other examples of systemd being pedantic about information nobody else have relied on before, and in the process getting its panties in a twist.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    Again, not defending systemd, but if you have a structured header in your file which is following a standard (even if no one is using your header or that standard yet), and your header is wrong, is it really anyone else's fault but yours? Shouldn't the fix simply be to remove the header (if you don't want anyone using it) or fixing it (if you do)? Why ask tools, which interpret the header according to the standard, to do something different because your header is wrong?
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      And once more we are myopically focusing on the technical when the root of the issue is historical and social (if not organizational). While the headers have existed, they have historically been underutilized and thus poorly maintained. Thus a newcomer can't just walk in and suddenly make them massively important while claiming the breakages that come out of it is not their problem.
      - jjnoakes 10y ago
        > While the headers have existed, they have historically been underutilized and thus poorly maintained. They are human-readable, so even if no tool used them, they still have an effect. Someone might read the header and incorrectly move the service in their sequential boot order, for example. Would you recommend that the person reading the header also "fix themselves" instead of fixing the header or filing a bug against whomever owns the incorrect file? > Thus a newcomer can't just walk in and suddenly make them massively important while claiming the breakages that come out of it is not their problem. Someone decided to put the two things together, right? Someone combined this "newcomer" and these old files with the bad headers? The onus should be on that person to make things right, not the tool which is using the headers correctly. It could be a distribution, for example, but it isn't the tool. Update them or remove them if they are wrong. Why campaign to leave them intact and incorrect?

lsaferite 10y ago

Seeing that no one is apparently using the information until systemd decided to, it seems like systemd being pedantic and the problem.

digi_owl 10y ago
And while i can't pull another example out of a hat right now, i am sure i have seen other examples of systemd being pedantic about information nobody else have relied on before, and in the process getting its panties in a twist.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  Again, not defending systemd, but if you have a structured header in your file which is following a standard (even if no one is using your header or that standard yet), and your header is wrong, is it really anyone else's fault but yours? Shouldn't the fix simply be to remove the header (if you don't want anyone using it) or fixing it (if you do)? Why ask tools, which interpret the header according to the standard, to do something different because your header is wrong?
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    And once more we are myopically focusing on the technical when the root of the issue is historical and social (if not organizational). While the headers have existed, they have historically been underutilized and thus poorly maintained. Thus a newcomer can't just walk in and suddenly make them massively important while claiming the breakages that come out of it is not their problem.
    - jjnoakes 10y ago
      > While the headers have existed, they have historically been underutilized and thus poorly maintained. They are human-readable, so even if no tool used them, they still have an effect. Someone might read the header and incorrectly move the service in their sequential boot order, for example. Would you recommend that the person reading the header also "fix themselves" instead of fixing the header or filing a bug against whomever owns the incorrect file? > Thus a newcomer can't just walk in and suddenly make them massively important while claiming the breakages that come out of it is not their problem. Someone decided to put the two things together, right? Someone combined this "newcomer" and these old files with the bad headers? The onus should be on that person to make things right, not the tool which is using the headers correctly. It could be a distribution, for example, but it isn't the tool. Update them or remove them if they are wrong. Why campaign to leave them intact and incorrect?