On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > d) [are packages likely to start depending on > localed/hostnamed/timedated/machined/??? in the same way as logind > such that it would need to be available outside systemd for upstart to > be a useful init?] GNOME certainly uses these interfaces already. Whether they should be considered a "dependency" or not is probably something that should be left to the maintainers' discretion. But I think they should certainly be handled the same way as logind, generally - with a dependency on some virtual package that other implementations could provide (or that can be provided by a binary package from systemd source that doesn't depend on pid 1 - since these dbus services all work fine on non-systemd systems, and there's no technical reason that should ever change given the function of the services in question). > I think (a) and (b) are pretty non-controversial. (c) and (d) are > required if we want to deal with new GNOME stuff and anything other > than systemd probably, and don't seem very hard to either do or > document. (e), (f) and (g) seem like a fairly straightforward of > allowing for multiple init systems in Debian. I think something like > (i) might be a good way of sunsetting tech ctte decisions so if > there's an actual consensus in future, there's no need to get a > pro-forma vote from the ctte to make changes in future. YMMV of > course. For my part I think this is generally a good idea, but I have the impression that at least Russ would be strongly opposed to this because it's too prescriptive. Probably not much sense in fleshing out such a resolution if there's not a consensus for it. -- 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