Back

@mhoye It's hilarious that everyone is still ranting about this (with a questionable spin on things) while upstream already implemented and backported a restriction of the usage of the parameter in question to prevent this (deleting home) from happening and clarification for the intended use-case. Which is not at all freeing up space by deleting tempfiles. Yes the tool's name is misleading, but if you ever maintained a sizeable project you should be able to relate to not wanting to rename.

@imsodin Everything you've just said is wrong.

The bug got fixed after public outcry, but the working culture that allowed that bug to exist in the first place hasn't changed at all and that's the problem.

If you've ever maintained a sizeable project, you know that long term, discoverability and legibility outweigh literally everything else, and when you find a problem with supportability you can solve with grep you take that win every single time.

Also, this shit's not funny in the least.

@imsodin "Nothing intentional?" Guy, _read the bug_.

bluca's opening comment is quite literally "this is working as intended and you are stupid".

The second comment says explicitly "the tool itself is nothing wrong."

It's not until you're 2/3rds of the way down the page that someone says "We need to rethink how --purge works. The principle of not ever destroying user data is paramount" and the next 2 comments from Poettering and Bluca are repeating that No Actually It's Right Actually.

@mhoye Yeah it is "right", as that's always in the eye of the beholder: You do want to purge user files if there user really wants to, e.g. application data when purge uninstalling that application. And it's super unlikely that anyone ever wants to do that with everything on their system, i.e. using it without a config file like the original reporter did. And now doing that is disallowed. I don't defend the original state as being good or anything, it's just ridiculous how people conflate nit being aware of/ignoring a problematic possible (mis)use of a tool with a conspiracy of systematic intention of harming userspace.
Oh and yes, Luca's communication here (not dating it's the only time) is not conductive of a constructive discussion (to put it mildly) - if that was what you all were complaining about, that would make a lot more sense.

@imsodin @mhoye So you agree
1) the tool was improperly designed
2) the tool was improperly documented
3) the bug were improperly triaged
4) the bug improperly managed

So what is your issue with being annoyed about being annoyed that things were put in a state where you could destroy your system using a tool where the documentation implies that it does something that *isn't* destroy the system?

@silverwizard @mhoye 1) not ideal maybe 2) yes 3) 4) no - there was one contributor reacting not very helpfully, but overall the reaction to the report went into the right direction and quickly so.
Also I wasn't poking at "being annoyed", I was poking at all the conjecture about intent and outrage, ask the huge noise being made over this (at least many outraged and well populated toots made it into my timeline, a perfectly objective measure of scale of outrage of course).

@silverwizard Oh I know they do, and a minority is also doing something about it (e.g. devuan and guix people), not just because of this but because of more reasonable concerns instead of just making a ruckuss like a majority (I suspect). I did read some issues with systemd I agree with (ok a few even), but nothing related to the issue here. Expect maybe the comm style exemplified by Luca here, but that's an unfortunately quite widespread issue not restricted to systemd only.