Re: let's split the systemd binary package
]] Thomas Goirand
> On 10/24/2013 04:51 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
[...]
> > If GNOME decides they want the DBus interfaces from systemd, that does
> > not put any obligation on systemd or the systemd maintainers to split
> > those bits of functionality out of systemd.
>
> We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
> modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
> reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
> re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes effective.
> That's a very different picture... :(
It's modular in two ways: Most of the functionality lives outside of pid
1. You can also choose not to use all parts of it. That does not mean
you can choose not to use systemd as init, but it means there are
optional components you can turn off. I'm not aware of it being argued
anywhere that you can pick and choose random components and they would
work fine with any other init system.
[...]
> At the end, if in Debian, there are ways so that we have all components
> of systemd and Gnome work well together *and* retain the modularity we
> used to have, I think we should go for it. And yes, to the extend of
> feasibility, this is IMO up to the systemd and Gnome maintainers to not
> introduce a regression where one (even if it's at the cost of loosing
> some upstream functionality) doesn't loose the possibility to choose
> components running on his system.
I don't think this is up to the systemd maintainers at all. What you're
asking here is for us to support a configuration which we don't think
makes sense and a configuration which none of us run. The GNOME
maintainers are of course allowed to ask if we can support that
configuration, but «no» should then also be an acceptable answer. How
the GNOME maintainers deal with that is really up to them. I'm sorry to
the for putting them between a rock and a hard place like that, but the
alternative is putting myself and the other systemd maintainers there.
> Since there's a Ubuntu patch, why not? Or is there more to it? The
> more the answer is "yes, it's becoming a lot more complex than this",
> then the more we'd be locked-in.
Patches need to be maintained. Configurations need to be tested in
order to stay supported. Nobody has volunteered for that job. I'm not
going to pretend to support configurations I believe won't work. That's
just dishonest.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: