Re: let's split the systemd binary package
Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> wrote:
>* Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> [131024 05:39]:
>> ]] Steve Langasek
>>
>> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> > > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
>> > > > [...]
>> > > >> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends
>on systemd,
>> > > >> this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't
>support systemd.
>> >
>> > > > Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus
>services should be
>> > > > separated out in the packaging.
>> > > Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
>> > > systemd (the init system).
>> >
>> > Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should
>not
>> > tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an
>upstream
>> > pushing an agenda.
>>
>> I'm arguing for that systemd is a complete package. You can't just
>take
>> one part of it and expect it to work, at least not without throwing
>> engineering time at it as well.
>
>The issue is not whether or not systemd is a complete package, but that
>the (current) Debian default desktop environment Depends on systemd.
>If
>systemd were already established as the _sole_ currently accepted init
>system, there might be a reasonable argument for this. However,
>currently, systemd is *very* controversial, and it is extremely unclear
>that it will become the default Debian init system. The default Debian
>DE should not require it.
>
>I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
>in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
>do not believe this. If it is true, however, I would consider it
>sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
>eliminate systemd as a candidate for the default init system,
>regardless
>of any technical merits.
If your concern is about Debian's default DE depending on systemd, there is more than one way to solve that problem.
Scott K
Reply to: