Re: let's split the systemd binary package
* Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org> [131024 05:39]:
> ]] Steve Langasek
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek <email@example.com>:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
> > > >> this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd.
> > > > Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be
> > > > separated out in the packaging.
> > > Some of the services consume functions and features provided by
> > > systemd (the init system).
> > Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not
> > tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream
> > pushing an agenda.
> I'm arguing for that systemd is a complete package. You can't just take
> one part of it and expect it to work, at least not without throwing
> engineering time at it as well.
The issue is not whether or not systemd is a complete package, but that
the (current) Debian default desktop environment Depends on systemd. If
systemd were already established as the _sole_ currently accepted init
system, there might be a reasonable argument for this. However,
currently, systemd is *very* controversial, and it is extremely unclear
that it will become the default Debian init system. The default Debian
DE should not require it.
I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
do not believe this. If it is true, however, I would consider it
sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
eliminate systemd as a candidate for the default init system, regardless
of any technical merits.