Re: let's split the systemd binary package
On 10/24/2013 11:08 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
>> modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
>> reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
>> re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes effective.
>> That's a very different picture... :(
>
> Your argument is complete nonsense. First, you're confusing modular
> architecture with the existence of alternative implementations for every
> part that can be freely switched without extra work. You've made similar
> fallacious arguments before - see this post for my earlier reply to one:
> https://lists.debian.org/<1370925376.18948.33.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid>
>
> Second, the earlier discussion was in the context of using systemd as
> the init system (NOT about trying to use some tools from systemd without
> actually running systemd the init). Surely you won't claim that tools
> depending on systemd as init is an argument to not use systemd as init!
I'm trying to understand what I'm being told. It'd be nice if you avoid
words like "fallacious" when commenting what I wrote, as if I had
intentional maliciousness in my replies.
On 10/24/2013 11:08 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> People have been "locked in" to using sysvinit as the init system on
> Debian. If they are now "locked in" to using systemd, how is that a
> regression? And what can they not choose "*anymore*"? Not that I'd
> value arbitrary infrastructure choice for its own sake, but it seems
> that every single part you listed as having been choosable before
> would remain so with systemd as mandatory init.
Seems I misunderstood what logind was about. I thought it would force to
use specific Xdm implementations that would support it. So you do
confirm that it's not the case, and that we aren't forced into using
GDM? Or is it that other Xdm implementations all have logind support
these days? What exactly Gnome requires?
Thomas
Reply to: