[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check

Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> writes:

> Sorry, I got completely the opposite impression from this tonight:

> On 29/01/14 17:41, Josselin Mouette wrote:

>> Because it needs logind.
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00360.html

> So, even having an adequate logind substitute, GNOME is expected to be
> considerably impaired without systemd?

Josselin can correct me if I've misunderstood him, but I believe his
opinion is that getting logind working without systemd for systemd
versions after 205 will be far harder than Steve thinks it is and will not
be viable for jessie.  This is, specifically, because the current Ubuntu
approach for separating logind from systemd breaks with versions of
systemd after 205 due to the implications of cgroup integration, and we
obviously don't want to ship jessie with systemd 204 when upstream is
already at a much newer version and will be even farther along by the time
jessie ships.

I don't think there is any disagrement over the scope of the dependency
(namely, on logind plus some of the other D-Bus services and daemons that
aren't as large of a porting issue).  Rather, the question is whether it
is actually viable to separate those services from systemd as init and
port logind to non-Linux, whether that work will be done in time for
jessie, and who is going to do it.

In other words, the portability issue is really about logind (plus some
other, more minor work), not about systemd, but the degree to which logind
forces systemd as init is disputed, and as yet no one has done the
concrete work to establish which technical opinion is correct with systemd
and logind >205.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: