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

Re: let's split the systemd binary package

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200
Matthias Klumpp <mak@debian.org> wrote:

> 2013/10/25 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>:
> > 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.

Thereby overstepping the remit of GNOME. It's not up to GNOME to decide
that these features *require* the rest of GNOME to only support a
single init system. Those features could have remained optional,
dependent on systemd support. Instead, GNOME actively decided to assert
that GNOME knows best and assert that everyone wanting GNOME had to
have systemd instead of simply adding these features *if* systemd was

That is my gripe, that's the core problem in GNOME. It's why I stopped
trying to develop code to work alongside GNOME and only work with XFCE
and Qt. GNOME upstream are toxic.

> 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,

Features are fine, I agree. There was nothing stopping GNOME from
making those features optional on the presence of systemd. Let others
fill in the gaps as GNOME has consistently done in previous releases.

No, this is a simple land-grab by GNOME.


Neil Williams

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: