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

Bug#727708: Processed: block 726763 with 727708

Sorry to add more noise to #727708, but I feel the need to clarify some
accusations that have been made before.

First of all, there's been no malice from our side as you have accused us of in
this thread. As an example, if you look at the last gdm3 and gnome-shell 3.8.x
uploads and their bug reports, you'll see that I tried hard to fix GNOME not
starting on sysvinit and other cases (e.g. custom kernels with different options
to Debian's).

I believe that I got things working for most users (I tested with both systemd
and sysvinit, with and without libpam-systemd...), though it still looks like
some people are having issues. Unfortunately, the bad atmosphere and the various
accusations here and on debian-devel didn't really motivate me to keep working
on that (or other Debian stuff tbh). Thus I've been holding on until the init
system decision is resolved, however that goes.

Now as for your direct question:

On 02/02/14 00:24, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Would the GNOME maintainers be willing to upload such a change?  Or would
> they be ok with me NMUing gnome-settings-daemon for it?

(These are my own thoughts.) I want to see how the TC decides on the init system
question first. Then I'll think about how to move forward on this and other
(related) issues. In any case I'll try to support the default init system, as
well as other inits, provided the TC decides that that is desired and the work
needed and the patches involved are not too invasive (and I may require changes
to be sent upstream first, but that is not different to what I already do in
many cases when I consider it appropriate). This may depend on whether fallback
paths are provided and maintained, on whether alternative implementations of the
required dbus interfaces are provided, and on other technicalities that we will
have to think through...

Looking forward to a final decision on the subject at hand,

Reply to: