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

Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> writes:
> Le vendredi 14 février 2014 à 13:50 +0000, Ian Jackson a écrit : 
>> 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

> This looks very much like a false dichotomy to me.

> You can have (c) GNOME depends on systemd.
> Same for KDE and Xfce, BTW, since they are going in the same direction.

> Desktop environments are not the only pieces of software in Debian.
> Having them depend on systemd doesn’t prevent you from using other init
> systems on machines that don’t have them installed.


I somewhat disagree with Josselin in that I actually do think this is an
unlikely result and that, at least in the short term, people will step
forward and find an alternative solution.  I also don't think that
maintaining a 204-era logind in the archive for jessie if a cgroups fix
doesn't materialize is the worst thing that could happen, provided that
someone is willing to maintain it.

But I also don't agree with the idea that it's the end of the world if
GNOME depends on systemd.  There are a bunch of other DEs, and there are a
bunch of other uses for Debian systems other than running DEs.

That said, I again repeat that I question whether it's worth having this
argument when there are concrete steps people can take today to ensure
that it is an argument we don't have to have.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: