[systemd-devel] [PATCH 2/2] vconsole-setup: setup negative conditional on uml

Kay Sievers kay at vrfy.org
Sun Jul 21 08:05:14 PDT 2013

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Kay Sievers wrote:
>> Where do you see any "specific exceptions for broken hacks"?
>> We surely support different forms of virtualizations, and support
>> reasonable custom behavior. But we do not support providing a tty0 and
>> have no working VT. It's just madness we don't want to see anywhere,
>> and we which we don't want to collect quirks for.
> So it has to do with classifying uml's behavior as "broken";
> therefore,

Not specifically UML, it's just that we first: don't want to maintain
and accumulate specific matches for broken behavior, and second: do
not want to explicitly support unreasonably broken things.

That rule applies to all other hacks of that class too, it's nothing
specific to UML.

Hacks like the UML tty0 hack is just a too broken idea, to
get any support or an exception in a generic tool like systemd.

> you want systemd to support only the general case of
> "broken-ness", and not the specific case of uml.

Right, as long as we can argue it's more "robust" it might be
acceptable, but "approving" of the way of pushing deliberately broken
low-level things into higher-level tools is another story. We need to
avoid that road as much as possible, it will end up in a mess after
a while.

> Fine.  Enough talk.  Are you happy with these? (rough, untested)

You meant to provide a patch against git, not your earlier patches?


More information about the systemd-devel mailing list