[ephaeton]

There's no need to be politic about this from the POV of systemd. "We support this feature on merged /usr" does not have to mean "we don't allow to run it on legacy systems because it doesn't make sense". Look, your users have more fantasy than you do how to use your software. Doesn't mean you have to support it. But it also doesn't mean you have to explicitly enable it only in the setup you envisioned this being used.

It's not an _assumed_ limitation. It's an _enforced_ limitation based on a limited world-view that also uses the gravity of the project to enforce the world-view on any user.

I'm not arguing pro or against split /usr. Reality though is that for various reasons there are legitimate use-cases for a non-unified directory tree, e.g. embedded ramdisks that contain only the barest of /bin in a crunchgen'd binary that don't want to duplicate stuff that's later used in /usr/bin. Linux is not only desktop and server.

systemd is being adopted because it solves problems well the distributors have, but THEN the distributor ALSO has to bend their distribution to the single enforced world-view the systemd folks have if they want it to integrate. They, the distributors, software integrators per se, are just forced to hack out limitations that are imposed by systemd folks for no benefit of either; systemd dev or user. No unified-/usr-user will benefit from this enforced restriction. A split-/usr-user will have to patch systemd and maintain their tree to use this feature if they have a good use-case for it because .. "systemd says so" (if you prefer that over the "B"DFL lennart).

Lastly, you are correct in that systemd is a pool of like-minded developers - not only lennart; and this is where I add: - who like to shape the reality out there instead of allowing distributors and users to easily take on their own responsibility easily. Sure, I can fork systemd (it's free software after all), but it's unnecessarily "opinionated" for its broad area of application. And that's where the "politic" dimension of systemd development comes into play ...

[jraph]

> There's no need to be politic about this from the POV of systemd

I don't think anybody is. It's their technical approach to develop stuff. But sure, their approach has a huge impact on the ecosystem.

> we don't allow to run it on legacy systems because it doesn't make sense

If I'm to design some piece of software that requires something, that this something is still relatively commonly not there and that I know it won't work without, yes, I'll go ahead, make a check and prevent the program to run in this configuration.

Think ./configure which will not write the Makefile if some critical dependency is missing. It's the same thing for me.

Anyway, the author did say "it won't work", he didn't say "We went out of our way to prevent the users from trying to do this if we detect an unmerged /usr". I think you read too much into the whole thing.

[ephaeton]

> But sure, their approach has a huge impact on the ecosystem.

And this is the political dimension of systemd. One they keep using to shape the ecosystem to their preference.

> If I'm to design some piece of software that requires something,

See that's the point. It doesn't _require_ a merged /usr to work. The benefit of the merged /usr here is that this guarantees to potentially overwrite/extend "all" binaries, not "only" those in a split-/usr. The latter doesn't mean it doesn't work. It just means that they only overwrite one place, not all potential places something exists.

[jraph]

> > But sure, their approach has a huge impact on the ecosystem.

> And this is the political dimension of systemd. One they keep using to shape the ecosystem to their preference.

Any highly successful project is political then. Linux developers in particular force their kernel and their views on how a kernel should behave and be designed down the throats of their users.

... Obviously you have your say when people choose to use your stuff. But then that's fine, you are the expert in your domain. Who else is better placed than you? If people use your stuff, probably preferences are shared.

Or they are locked-in (through network effect for instance). But the systemd folks are not out there having an evil agenda they force the ecosystem into. They solve their problems and people do happen to adopt their stuff. They do seem to have a very "if it's broken, fix it" approach but that seems to work out quite well. Sure that's not always comfortable but I find it somewhat refreshing.

[lazyier]

> systemd is being adopted because it solves problems well the distributors have, but THEN the distributor ALSO has to bend their distribution to the single enforced world-view the systemd folks have if they want it to integrate.

It is like saying that "It is great that engineers are working to provide a unified rail line across Europe, but they are assholes because they want everybody to use the same rail gauge as well as implementing these changes that will allow the rails to handle traffic going 200 mph. The unified rail folks have an agenda!!"

The problem they are trying to solve is solved by "bending of the will", so to say.