On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 09:13:52PM +0100, Josselin Mouette 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.
It's not true that it's unrelated. In v205, logind hands off the cgroup
heirarchy creation to PID 1, precisely because it's preparing for the
anticipated future kernel requirement of a single cgroup writer. If we're
expecting this "single cgroup writer" requirement to manifest, then it makes
sense to move cgroup writing out of logind. The problem is with moving it
to PID1, causing increasingly tight coupling between the components of
systemd.
> 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).
"It's important to note that with these patches, we still support
non-systemd systems (as well as older systemd). How far into the future we
do so is an open question, but it should not be too difficult to leave
non-systemd systems with the previous model over the next few cycles."
https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features/SystemdUserSession
I suppose it's possible that GNOME upstream are actually insane enough to
decide that in future versions they will dictate an init system to the
distributions, but that is not actually an issue for 3.12. There are
advantages to using systemd for user session management, particularly when
coupled with Wayland... but these can just as well be delivered on top of
upstart rather than systemd. It does not follow that GNOME upstream should
dictate to Debian that they adopt systemd rather than upstart.
> 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.
I think the current Debian GNOME team has a not-undeserved reputation for
being obstructionist with respect to bugfixes that require divergence from
upstream's stated direction. If the team demonstrated they were open to
contributions of the kind you described, volunteers to do the work would not
be hard to come by.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature