On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Leon Fauster <leonfauster at googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >>> But what am I doing. The World passed that point... >>> >> >> I guess debugging the GUIs that make the config files accessible will >> be job security for the young guys that replace us... > > > > Are you serious? Do you provide manually the links for the sysV fs? I have. And I know how to. Ascii sort order is a straightforward concept for both humans and computers. I knew how to deal with scenarios with subtle issues like the network service 'completing' startup even though the connected switch was still doing spanning tree and the next network operation would fail. And now I don't know how to tell how introducing some new arbitrary service will interact with an existing arbitrary set. > Or do you use an "wrapper/helper" (e.g. ntsysv, chkconfig)? So why > not using the same work-abstraction for a different boot process? I have. And now those won't work the same way. So why was using that abstraction good? > And about readability - do you read all configuration files on every > system boot? No - but the system does and therefore xml is more suitable. I read them at the important times. When things aren't working. The ones shipped with the system have already had years of breakage gradually fixed in fedora. Our local apps will have to start from scratch. > Please don't misunderstand me. As I tried and mentioned before - the > whole disarmony here is more based on human and not on technical factors. > I am on your side but for sure for different reasons. EL7 has changed > to much not only the boot process. The cluster stack, IPsec implementation > and httpd config syntax is different, NM for network, gnome-shell, missing > TB and so on. Further investigation and adaptation of our deployment processes > are in progress. So, EL6 will stay here as a primary plattform. You are just deferring the pain unless you plan to retire before EOL for EL6 and foist the work off on someone else. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com