The Strengths and Weakness of Fedora/RHEL OS management

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 3/28/06, Shane Stixrud <shane at geeklords.org> wrote:
> My guess is because at the time they did the patches this debate was not
> hot.  It seems they treated sysvinit as a proof of concept that
> libelektra is usable even at the earliest stages of os initialization.

everything with regard to elektra is proof of concept at the moment.
Is there any upstream project new or old that is attempting to use
elektra? Just point me to an upstream discussion for any codebase with
a seperate set of lead developers who are working on integrating
elektra even as an option for configuration.   Is anyone who is
responsibly for the mainline development of any application that has
configuration files to deal with looking to pick up this technology
and run with it?  Fedora should not be crowbaring any technological
leap which is meant to be a "standard" into old codebases if there
isn't even obvious momentum yet with regard to new codebase adoption.

I don't see any upstream project reaching for a solution to what
elektra is attempting. At the very least that a very big marketing
problem that the elektra project has. Billing yourself as the end all
be all of configuration systems.. and you can't get any upstream
project developers to see your point? Either you are overblowing the
problem or your implementation has some serious flaws or you aren't
making an effort to market your technology to the right people. I'm
giving elektra the benefit of the doubt when I say their problem is a
matter of focusing on the wrong audience. Upstream! Upstream!
Upstream!
Continuing to bring it up at the distribution level is a good way to
never gain traction. Getting an up and coming application to bite the
bullet and use your technology moves your project from "proof of
concept" to "in use in the wild"

-jef