Re: standalone logind (Re: Bits from the systemd + GNOME sprint)
Hi,
Kevin Chadwick:
> previously on this list Matthias Urlichs contributed:
>
> > The second case is a no-brainer. Many packages in Debian consist of more
> > than one binary, of which you need at most one (if that). Do you really
> > want to mass-file a bug against all of these _and_ the packages depending
> > on them, or are you picking on systemd for non-technical reasons here?
> >
> > Sorry, but I suspect the latter.
>
> Why did I expect any reasonable and balanced discussion! I suspect
> but haven't mentioned that I expect the reasons for bundling these
> components together to be on highly questionable grounds.
>
Oh, you mentioned that plainly enough.
A reasonable and balanced discussion may be started when somebody comes
forward with legitimate technical problems. I did not perceive your
concerns as such.
* for better or worse, Debian decided on systemd as its future init system.
As such it's probably going to be Priority: Standard, and Joe+Jane DD
expect (IMHO entirely reasonably) that it's going to be all there.
* you didn't actually state what the TECHNICAL problem is. "I don't like
it" is not a technical reason. "Another package will have problems
replacing | turning off | not installing some part of systemd" is
(respectively) true but not demonstrated to be relevant | false | not
deemed relevant given the wide availability of multi-GByte microSD cards
* your signature has already been mentioned. If you state up front that
you're not interested in a reasonable discussion, don't complain when it
doesn't happen.
* last but not least: if you do have a tangible reason for your post, i.e.
one of your packages doesn't work with the way systemd is packaged,
kindly tell us which package that is and what you're trying to do.
Otherwise this is all hypothetical, and while I cannot speak for others,
I am sick and tired of discussing hypothetical things and will now go
package the next version of python-yapps2. I suggest that you do
likewise, with one of yours.
> I guess there is no unlaborious way to see which programs depend on a
> particular binary of a given package?
>
The people packaging systemd probably (I do not speak for them) did not see
any good reason to split up these packages, for the reasons I mentioned in
this and my last email. If this is a real problem for you, kindly speak up
and tell us why disabling logind with two quick systemctl commands,
assuming that you _really_ do not need it, is insufficient.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
Reply to: