[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 11:27:53AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> writes:
> > 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?
> I'm still wondering if maybe there's just a communication failure here, so
> let me try one more round.
> My understanding of what Josselin is saying is that GNOME's ConsoleKit
> support is effectively unmaintained and unsupported upstream, as is
> ConsoleKit itself.  The consequences of that are starting to show in a
> variety of unfixed bugs.

No, Josselin was making the technical claim that GNOME 3.10 would need a 
working logind even for basic functionality.

So if it is possible to get the basic functionality of GNOME 3.10 
without a working logind, his claim is just plain wrong.

And when I was asking him for the technical details that would back up 
such a strong claim, he was not able to deliver.

And that does matter a lot, since such claims seem to be the basis
of all these "GNOME in jessie needs systemd" or "with multiple init 
systems, GNOME will need a dependency on systemd" (and Josselin even 
expects an exception from the release managers for that if the TC 
decision would not allow such a dependency [1]).

I do fully acknowledge that there are issues with ConsoleKit being 
unmaintained and many non-systemd codepath in GNOME being unmaintained
and with GNOME missing some non-basic functionality without systemd.

But claims that even basic functionality in GNOME in jessie could not 
work without logind might just be FUD.

The TC can rule that systemd will be the default for jessie and that 
dependencies on systemd will be OK if a maintainer wishes do add them, 
but such a decision should be based on facts and not on unproven
"GNOME needs it" claims.


[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00460.html


       "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: