Hi Steven, thanks for taking this to the list and for doing some further investigations. That's quite among the best possible outcomes of that blog post of mine ;-) On Dienstag, 3. Juni 2014, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > I've taken a look in linux-amd64 sid and it is mostly true. thats what I'm looking at too. though sid and jessie too. The url I have specified however has these packages: gdm3|gnome-session|gnome-shell*|gnome-core|gnome|gnome-desktop- environment|task-gnome-desktop|razorqt|sucrose-0.96|xfswitch-plugin|mate-core| mate-desktop-environment*|task-kde-desktop) > I agree none of these packages seem to be installable without bringing > in systemd and systemd-sysv: > > gdm3 gnome-session gnome-shell gnome-core gnome > gnome-desktop-environment task-gnome-desktop razorqt sucrose-0.96 > xfswitch-plugin mate-core mate-desktop-environment task-kde-desktop > > kde-standard kde-plasma-desktop kde-plasma-netbook piuparts has not gotten this far with testing yet (other depends of these packages are probably in the failed testing state), but I have added those to my list. as well as ltsp-server-standalone which piuparts.d.o just found now also depending on systemd-sysv > But the following *are* installable without any systemd packages; > seemingly only if you specify --no-install-recommends for some reason: piuparts uses --no-install-recommends by default and piuparts.debian.org does use this default. > kde-baseapps kde-runtime kde-workspace plasma-desktop > [I think that's all of task-kde-desktop except for udisks2] > > Most notably installable without any systemd packages: > > xfce4 task-xfce-desktop those indeed aren't on my list, but "xfswitch-plugin" is, and that is part of XFCE which is why stated what I staed. > It may be that piuparts prefers to bring in systemd sometimes, but the > dependency chain could still be satisfied some other way without it. piuparts just uses apt-get for installations. own code is just used to calculate which packages should be tested next. > If you agree, could you pretty-please amend the false statement in your > blog post to at least mention XFCE does not depend on systemd? well, to me the current question here is how much is "xfswitch-plugin" essential part of XFCE? (once this is clear I'll be glad to amend my blog post.) > Because > there is too much false information relating to systemd circulating > already (for or against it), and it being such a hot issue, that I think > we should be especially careful to avoid adding to it. I thought it's useful to bring up some facts and maybe some false statements, so these can be corrected and more facts are known to more people... Oh, and systemd-sysv should me made essential soon or sysvinit-core should be made non-essential (or whatever the next steps are to implement the decision from #727708) ASAP - because there will be this freeze in 5 months... cheers, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.