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

Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion





On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
Le mardi 31 décembre 2013 à 18:31 +0000, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#727708: init system other points, and conclusion"): > What about the cgroup management functionality that newer versions of > logind require? Should the systemd maintainers also reimplement it in > upstart? This is a somewhat separate issue, but: I think bundling the single cgroup writer into systemd is a very poor design choice. I think the bad consequences of that choice should be borne by the people who made it.
By writing this, it strikes me that you must have seriously misunderstood some fundamental concepts of systemd. The new logind behavior is unrelated to the “single cgroup writer” matter, because there is no single cgroup writer as of today. I spent quite some time to summarize facts on cgroup management at Andreas’ request, and it seems you haven’t even read them. I find this very rude from a member of the technical committee to not try to understand the technical issues before deciding what other people are supposed to do. Which brings me to the other point: you are not going to decide what people want to spend their time on. If systemd is selected as the default, the systemd maintainers are not going to ask Steve to fix their upgrades problem for them. And if upstart is selected, you will certainly not ask members of the systemd community - from which Debian would have just excluded itself - to fix Debian’s problems with not having systemd.

Nobody is preventing anybody from spending time on re-integrating systemd and its services.

For an example I know, if having a working GNOME on Linux means a dependency on systemd, then it will have a dependency on systemd. If the TC overrules that, like it did the last time one of its members felt offended by a dependency in a package he doesn’t use, the alternative will have to be developed and made available by someone. From my discussions so far with other members of the GNOME team, that someone will not be a member of that group.

Do not assume that people who dislike GNOME's systemd dependency do not use GNOME. I do not use GNOME, but my sanity depends on gsettingsd (my touchpad is broken and only gsettingsd can fix it), as well as my aesthetic happiness (I like Pantheon shell, which uses gsettingsd and gnomecc).

Let’s say that GNOME migrates to systemd user sessions, like what is planned for GNOME 2.12 (yes, the version we intend to ship in jessie, ain’t that sweet). You can decide to cripple GNOME with Ubunbu patches instead, but that won’t be GNOME anymore; just an unbranded Ubuntu desktop. And you will not ask the people who spend their time providing a serious, upstream-friendly alternative to that desktop to spend it on dumping Ubuntu packages in Debian instead.

If GNOME depends on systemd, that is fine, but GNOME does not get to dictate Debian's choice. The GNOME maintainers need to do whatever is necessary for GNOME to run on Debian, including maintaining systemd and systemd units, patching to work with Upstart, or removing functionality that depends on systemd (which should not at all be basic functionality, but only small stuff).

Even if that non-basic functionality is removed, **it will still be GNOME**. At least, it should be based on GNOME's own technical conclusion.

It seems like you are saying that because GNOME has decided to depend on systemd, that Debian needs to cater to that decision. Debian does not. In fact, Debian //should not//, because GNOME consciously decided (or will decide) to break non-systemd compatibility, and knew that doing so would break GNOME on Debian (in its current state).

Cheers,
Cameron Norman

So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the archive, you need to take into account the fact that some voluntary manpower is required to implement your decision. Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive: [🔎] 1388520832.5187.31.camel@tomoe">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 1388520832.5187.31.camel@tomoe

Reply to: