Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME
On 10/23/2013 10:30 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Well I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of flame war... about
> systemd, GNOME or similar.
I don't hope either, I'm tired of these.
> I wouldn't have any issues with that, but at least right now systemd is
> for me not yet production ready (it seems to miss proper dm-crypt
> integration - or at least all those use cases where dm-crypt makes sense
> at all).
> Of course I can install the package but don't have to switch init= to
> it, nevertheless it seems that already this alone adds several things
> (udev rules, dbus stuff and some things in the maintainer scripts) that
> *will* get enabled.
And does this cause any problems actually? Does your system no longer
boot properly using sysvinit when systemd is installed?
I don't exactly understand the problem so far.
> I've opened #726675, asking the GNOME developers what they think about
> this, but the only answer so far is basically "GNOME now depends on
I think you should rather file this to GNOME upstream. We, as Debian,
aren't really in the position to change that, are we?
> I personally think this is a design problem of GNOME upstream and we
> have previously seen that GNOME upstream forces their "blessings" upon
> their users - anyway... probably not something we can change from Debian
See. Therefore, please report this to bugzilla.gnome.org.
> So I guess the question is mainly,... what's the policy from Debian side
> now with such cases?
Well, Debian is aiming for full systemd integration with Jessie, so
there is that.
> And does anyone know whether it causes "hurt" to just install the
> package without using it?
Uh, didn't you indirectly state above that it does? I thought you
actually have seen some problems with systemd being installed without
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - email@example.com
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - firstname.lastname@example.org
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913