Bug#727708: init system coupling etc.
On 2014-02-14 10:14:54 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:59:34PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-02-14 15:46:18 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."):
> > > > Don't you mean "drop GNOME, KDE and others"? It's not only GNOME that
> > > > plans to depend on logind...
> > > logind is a red herring because AIUI we already have a technical
> > > solution to that. The problem is other things that might be in the
> > > pipeline.
> > I am not so sure it's there. The current version runs without systemd
> > but doesn't support everything
> Based on what? There is only one new interface in logind between v204 and
> v208, an 'org.freedesktop.login1.Manager.GetUserByPID' method. Are you
> telling me that this is a critical feature for desktops, that they won't run
> correctly without?
Nono, that's not what I meant, sorry for being imprecise. Logind calls
out to systemd for shutting down. -shim now supports some of that, but
the last time I tried logind without systemd but just -shim didn't work
> > and more up2date versions don't run at all. There's promise of more work
> > in that direction, but that might be influenced by Ubuntu seemingly also
> > switching in the not too far away future:
> > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316
> Which says right in that blog entry that:
> We’ll certainly complete work to make the new logind work without systemd
> as pid 1.
> Even supposing that GetUserByPID is critical for jessie, and even supposing
> that Canonical did not finish the work to make logind work with cgmanager,
> backporting this one interface to logind 204 will be trivial. There is no
> excuse at all for Debian getting the compatibility wrong in jessie. (But an
> awful lot of people who seem eager to make excuses for it.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't think compatibility should be dropped
in the near future. It's just that Ian argued that gnome requiring
logind won't become a problem because of the current state of logind and
systemd-shim, and in consequence that forbidding dependencies on
interfaces provided only when systemd is present is unproblematic. I
don't think the current state warrants that.
I think there should be clear language, be it in policy or TC
resolution, to suggest that maintainers should accept compatibility
patches. But that's it.