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

Bug#727708: multiple init systems - formal resolution proposal



On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:17:29PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 20:00 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : 
> > What *basic functionality* exactly is missing in GNOME 3.10 without logind?
> > 
> > Note that I am not referring to bugs that are not yet sorted out like
> >   * Switch from consolekit to systemd-logind sessions. For some reason
> >     gnome-shell 3.10 unlocking fails with consolekit...
> > 3 months ago in gdm3 - I am referring to basic functionality that is 
> > simply missing in GNOME 3.10 without logind.
> 
> You have the answer to your own question above. Unlocking the screen
> sounds like pretty basic functionality.

Your statement was
  I also have to insist that GNOME 3.10+ *needs* a working logind even for
  basic functionality

Are you saying that there are only some bugs to get sorted out for using 
GNOME 3.10 without logind, or is there a fundamental technical reason
why some *basic functionality* (which?) cannot be made working in
GNOME 3.10 without logind?


>...
> Add to that the fact that ConsoleKit itself has been
> unmaintained for quite some time, making it unsuitable for a new stable
> release that needs maintenance for several more years

Debian is anyway not providing much maintenance apart from security 
updates for stable, so there is no real problem here for jessie.

And for security fixes, companies like Red Hat are anyway committed to
provide these for ConsoleKit for their products until around 5 years 
*after* Debian will have dropped security support for jessie.[1]

cu
Adrian

[1] the announced End of Extended Life Cycle for
    Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 is Q4 2023

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


Reply to: