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

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

2013/10/25 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:36:30 -0400
> Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org> wrote:
>> However, it is obviously true that systemd as the default init
>> system is controversial, and that GNOME depends on it.  While GNOME
>> may work with systemd installed but not PID 1 at the moment, in
>> another message Uoti Urpala says that systemd as PID 1 will be
>> required in an upcoming release.  If this is true, regardless of
>> motives, then if GNOME is the default DE, systemd will be the de
>> facto default init system.  The default init system should be decided
>> _before_ the DE, not _by_ the DE.
> Exactly.
> It is not up to GNOME to assume that systemd is the only init system it
> can choose to support. That decision is entirely separate and outside
> the scope of the GNOME developers. The desktop environment has no
> business assuming it knows best and the developers of that environment
> have no business dictating the use of one init system above another.
> It's not about whether the GNOME developers or maintainers should have
> chosen one init system or another based on activity of that system,
> it's about whether GNOME developers even have the option of making that
> choice. I submit that they do not. Their decision to do so is
> presumptive and disruptive. Debian does not have to respect that
> decision and should not follow blindly.
No, but GNOME has a mission to create a great desktop-environment
which is easy to use and "just works". And logind (in combination with
systemd) offers features to accomplish that goal and provides some
truly awesome features for session-management, multiseat etc. which
GNOME decided to support.
So, GNOME did not make a decision "for an init-system", but a decision
for a set of features they assume should be integral part of a
well-working Linux desktop. And there's nothing wrong with doing that,

Reply to: