Bug#727708: init system discussion status
On 5 January 2014 01:46, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> writes:
>
>> Imho that's a gross overstatement. Over more than a year, an Ubuntu
>> GNOME team was established and became official ubuntu flavour with so
>> goal and purpose of shipping GNOME3 in it's full glory. If distro watch
>> is any indication they are fast growing ubuntu flavour, outpacing the
>> more established ones like e.g. Xubuntu. The demand for such flavour is
>> growing, with highly positive reviews from critics and general
>> public. There is a group of volunteers who contribute to making it
>> work. I've personally used it, and it's quite wonderful and capable
>> desktop environment. I think there is some degree of heresy to claim
>> that GNOME3 is only supported with systemd-init pid1. That was the case
>> intermittently, until majority of pid1 checks were replaced by more
>> correct ones.
>
> Insofar as this is evidence that it's possible to make GNOME work with
> option 2 (run logind without systemd), this is certainly valid
> information, but I think this is information that we already have. As I
> said in my original writeup, I believe the main challenge with option 2
> for jessie is not in figuring out *how* to do the work, but in identifying
> *who* is going to do the work. (Beyond jessie, this will require ongoing
> resources to maintain if it's not purely a transitional issue, but that's
> a somewhat separate discussion.) And I'll note that Sjoerd said exactly
> the same thing.
>
> Saying that it's easy is fine, particularly if you have details as to why
> it's easy. What we're not going to do is say that therefore the existing
> GNOME maintainers in Debian must do it. That is not how we work as a
> project, and that is not how we're going to work as a project. If they
> don't want to do the work, no one is going to force them to do it.
>
> Please instead note Steve's comments on maintaining logind as a separate
> package, which is the productive way forward and is a way to get to the
> second solution in my original message. Volunteering to do the work and
> finding a way to do it in a minimally intrusive fashion is the way to show
> that it's straightforward.
>
I see thanks. I guess the only relevant addition, is that there is a
pool of self-selected developers that are working on the similar type
of integration issues: GNOME3 with logind without systemd-init. The
Ubuntu GNOME team (packaging team is 18 people at the moment, there
are more in users/qa/documentation teams ~250+ people)
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-gnome-packaging
>> Even if that was the case, why should one Desktop Environment dictate
>> for all Debian users what the pid1 should be? We are debating this
>> decision not only on behalf of Debian developers, maintainers of GNOME,
>> but ultimately on behalf of all our users. Which significantly includes
>> !gnome3 and/or headless deployments.
>
> I think you have gotten confused as to which part of this thread that
> you're participating in (which is understandable, given that it's a
> giant).
>
> This discussion was prompted by my question to Sjoerd about what the
> impact to GNOME would be for supporting sysvinit in jessie, and for
> supporting a configuration without logind in jessie. That's information
> that we need to have in the Technical Committee in order to decide what
> options are reasonable to include in a discussion. Sjoerd was responding
> to that question in his role as a current Debian GNOME maintainer based on
> his experience with the packaging and with the current GNOME code
> requirements.
>
> In other words, this discussion is specifically about GNOME because I
> *asked* for it to be specifically about GNOME, because we have some reason
> to believe it might be particularly heavily impacted.
>
> If you have a separate analysis, I also very much appreciate your comments
> and analysis. But getting upset at him for providing his opinion is
> directly counterproductive and just makes it harder for the Technical
> Committee to do its work. Now it's less likely that someone else with
> relevant technical knowledge will be willing to volunteer it in public,
> for fear of having someone else jump on them.
>
I think I am confused about the giant threads, their chapters,
sub-threads, sections, and individual emails. Sorry about that.
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: