Re: let's split the systemd binary package
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with
> it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it
> is an extremely small minority of Debian users but possibly? a majority
Do you have any references to back up how you know this? Or just merely
guessing? It seems like pure guesswork.
> This should be considered in weighting the pros and cons that's all
> especially when terms like real features (largely gone undefined) are
> being banded around. As I have said issues that affect many and people
> may actually notice have gone are easily fixed as far as I am aware
> (certainly the ones mentioned like suspend, as I do so when disabling
> polkit very easily without compilation). So how many debian Gnome users
> will notice the breakage aside from suspend and ? how many will
> continue to use Gnome if the default is changed as has already been
Are you taking up ConsoleKit development or not? Loads of things could
theoretically maybe be done. What matters is something concrete.
> On top of that, large organisation's should have no problem solving
> this and do they use debian or want support from Red Hat/Citrix in
> most cases?
Please don't turn this into a Canonical vs Red Hat thread.
> I don't need the dbus system bus personally either but I understand the
> vast vast majority do in current setups, so that is a real issue of the
> future if permitted to land into the kernel as the only option (I doubt
> it) and as Canonical/Ubuntu and Google have concerns on multiple fronts
> here I think it is certainly worth waiting that out and should not
> really be used as an argument currently.
GNOME relies on d-bus for various things. Not liking d-bus doesn't
change that fact.