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

Re: so, systemd now and teh world still turns...

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:


> 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...


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: