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

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
> raised.

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.


Reply to: