-----
Adding "hacks" but not testing to ensure said hacks don't cause issues:
Lennart Poettering 2014-02-21 13:49:25 UTC
To make this work we'd need a patch, as nobody of us tests this.
Comment 3 Michael Shigorin 2014-04-04 06:30:57 UTC
Hope all of you either test all the combinations or do not break at will those you don't have the time and inclination to test, at least in system-wide components that are not specific to systemd, while pushing the latter hard.
Comment 4 Lennart Poettering 2014-04-04 14:56:43 UTC
Well, cgroups-less kernels are explicitly not supported by systemd. However we added some hacks to allow it to boot to a certain degree even if a lot of things will not work correctly afterwards. In this mode when you boot you will actually get a warning on screen and bootup is delayed by 10s to make sure the user understands this.
Now, this mode recently broke, and it will segfault early on. I am happy to take a patch to 'fix' this again, but I will not work on this as i dont run kernels like this, and as mentioned its not really supported anyway...
Another option is to simply be honest amd stop supporting in entirely, and refuse booting completely. And I figure this is what I will eventually do if nobody cares enough to send me a patch to fix that segfault.
I can't figure out what the problem here is, are you trying to run systemd with a kernel with cgroups compiled out? I don't see how that's a show stopping bug, from the discussion there it was never supported.
No, I'm not. I'm satisfying the other person's request for sources with examples I've come across in the past. In this case it was not about cgroup-less kernels but about Poettering's and Sievers' attitudes towards fixing the issue.
This is why I don't like to talk about systemd on any internet forum; it always leads to people like you ready to attack any position around the subject, and me having to defend a position I don't even hold (I don't think systemd sucks, I think its developers could do better though). I am done with this thread.
I'm not attacking you or asking you to defend a position, I'm asking for clarification because I legitimately do not understand what the issue is. I totally agree with you, it is not helping anyone to become defensive over this. I don't understand what the attitude was, it seems to have been fixed 8 years ago? Did I miss something?
