| 1 |
On 03/06/2014 18:48, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 6/3/2014 11:10 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more |
| 4 |
>> infrastructure migrates towards systemd. Perhaps a news item everytime |
| 5 |
>> it happens is unrealistic? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Weren't you the one saying that those of us who were voicing concerns |
| 8 |
> that systemd proponents were ultimately wanting to FORCE systemd on |
| 9 |
> everyone were just scare-mongering conspiracy theorists? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I don't think that is what is happening here. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The upower devs decided to stop inventing their own wheel wrt |
| 18 |
hibernate/suspend and instead use the code for the same purpose that is |
| 19 |
in systemd, lower down the stack. In some way this makes sense, much |
| 20 |
like if you had your own hand-rolled ssl code and decided to drop it in |
| 21 |
favour of linking with openssl. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The bad news is that upower was the last project actively working on |
| 24 |
hibernate/suspend outside of systemd, so it can look like conspiracy theory. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The good news is that the version of upower prior to this decision still |
| 27 |
works fine and likely will for ages to come. That code has been bundled |
| 28 |
into a new package upower-pm-utils. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Anyone that feels like doing it can now step up to the plate and |
| 31 |
continue the work upower was doing earlier. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Perhaps it really is a case of projects are migrating to systemd because |
| 34 |
there's an advantage to doing so and makes a dev's life easier. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 42 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives