Re: Systemd
Hi,
Ralf Jung:
> In fact I am surprised that what we seem to end up with is an
> alternative implementation of some internal systemd APIs (called
> systemd-shim), which *will* break in backwards-incompatible ways -
> instead of a reimplementation of the API that devs (of policykit or
> various DEs) care about, namely logind.
Probably because re-implementing all of logind is significantly more work
than writing that shim. Even if you *do* have to do it twice, due to
changing internals.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
Reply to: