<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - Do not parse "debug" command line parameter" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c32">Comment # 32</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - Do not parse "debug" command line parameter" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935">bug 76935</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:pgoetz@mail.utexas.edu" title="Patrick Goetz <pgoetz@mail.utexas.edu>"> Patrick Goetz</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c22">comment #22</a>) > > The primary argument against the namespacing is catering to end users trying > to troubleshoot who are unfamiliar with the kernel/udev/systemd split of > responsibilities. Obviously, the counter-argument is to namespace in order > to fully isolate systemd's debug mode from the kernel's (without requiring > systemd.log_level) and avoid a similar assertion bug affecting developers > the same way. > Is this a valid argument, though? Surely any end user sophisticated enough to attempt to troubleshoot a problem at this level will also be sufficiently knowledgeable to able to type systemd.debug on the kernel command line. Being able to sandbox debugging output with something as simple as namespacing seems like it would be great feature, not a problem; i.e. ---debug +++systemd.debug makes systemd better, as far as I can tell.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>