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

Re: Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."):
> > In all cases, it is unacceptable to put the burden of implementing
> > logind on non-systemd systems on maintainers of packages that just need
> > the logind interfaces. If it is not available, software such as gdm3
> > will depend, directly or indirectly, on systemd as PID 1, and that will
> > be all.
> Firstly, I think the scenario where the required integration work is
> not done is unlikely.  But in that scenario, we have two choices:
>  (a) Effectively, drop all init systems other than systemd
>  (b) Effectively, drop GNOME

In this hypothetical scenario, suggesting that as an either-or implies
that *not* dropping GNOME, and instead having it exist in the archive
and depend on systemd, would effectively be dropping support for all
init systems other than systemd.  For that to be true, it would imply
that GNOME has such a critical level of importance in the distribution
that just having GNOME depend on systemd would make non-systemd inits
unusable.  If that were true, then (b) would fairly obviously not be an
option.  (Or to say that the other way around: if dropping GNOME were an
option, then it must not be important enough for its dependency on
systemd to be a problem.)  And if it *isn't* true, then there's no
forced dichotomy here: GNOME can depend on systemd, non-systemd inits
can continue to work fine on systems not running GNOME, and the world
doesn't end.

(Given the hypothetical scenario above, I'm going to ignore the issue
that this is about much more than just GNOME, and that there's a pile of
other relevant software planning to depend on logind or systemd in the
future.  Nonetheless, it's worth poking at the logic in the
hypothetical, since it seems generally applicable to more cases.)

- Josh Triplett

Reply to: