Re: Survey answers part 1: systemd has too many dependencies, …
Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 02:23 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Then which component would you install, and activate by default? Which
> >> component will you make only installable if the user decides to do it
> >> actively (for example using apt-get install)?
> >
> > That is an uninteresting option. There is no way we can afford to have two
> > different sets of features for PID 1 under the same name in Debian without
> > it causing support trouble we don't need. So, please assume that every
> > "optional" PID 1 feature of systemd will be compiled in, and that only stuff
> > that can be disabled at runtime might be disabled.
>
> If what you say above is right (I have no opinion on that yet, I just
> trust what you say), then this renders the "systemd is modular" argument
> completely useless, because practically, the user wont be able to
> choose. Which is why I was asking specifically Michael about this, since
> he raised the fact that systemd is modular and components can be disabled.
As I understand it, the point about modularity was brought up to clarify
misunderstandings about systemd architecture, not to suggest that the
Debian setup should give users the ability turn arbitrary things on or
off just for the sake of having more choices to make.
Some people apparently had various misunderstandings about systemd
"bloat", up to believing that it would have a huge collection of varying
functionality in PID 1. The "systemd is modular" argument shows what's
wrong with this "bloat" view. It still works even if Debian maintainers
decide to use all the modules. Your "user won't be able to choose" would
be relevant if the complaint had been that systemd doesn't provide
Gentoo users enough switches to turn on or off, but apparently that was
not a common complaint in the survey.
Reply to: