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

Re: Init system deba{te|cle}





Le 01.11.2013 17:07, Reco a écrit :
Hi.

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:35:40 +0100
berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:



Le 01.11.2013 10:23, Reco a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 09:58:26PM +0100,
> berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
>> That's not gnome which changes the boot process. It's systemd. It
>> simply happens that gnome depends on systemd in Debian build.
>> Since AFAIK gnome is still available on platforms not based on linux >> kernel, unlike systemd, I really think that it's gnome maintainer's
>> choice to have this hard dependency.
>
> One of GNOME developers says that:
>
>
> http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/
>
> Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any
> processes it started. This is what systemd does, but OpenRC didn’t
> support that. Which means that GDM under OpenRC would leave lingering
> processes around, making it impossible to restart/shutdown GDM
> properly.
>
> Debian GNOME packagers are planning the same AFAIK; they rather just
> rely on systemd …
>
>
> So, Debian maintainers had a choice: make systemd an dependency to
> GDM.
> Or, ship GDM that behaves funny.

So the problem is that only systemd which is able to manage daemon's
lives? I mean, if another tools was able (maybe upstart or any other, I have no idea if one does the same thing) to control daemons' lives, it
could be used instead of systemd without any problem?

For this specific daemon - yes, it's can be managed correctly by
systemd only. At least, the man says so.
The reason is (the way I see it) - GDM is now designed with systemd in
mind, it does nothing to cleanup after itself. You use anything other
than systemd to start GDM, try to stop GDM - it leaves gdm* processes.
No other daemon known to me behaves like that.

Ok, thanks for the info. I have always thought that gnome have a bad design (needing to install so many tools when you only need a small part of the DE is not what I call a good design. Just my opinion, and it might also be outdated, of course), and it seems it becomes worse. BTW, if they love GC at this point, they should rewrite everything in Java!



PS: was it intended to send that reply only to me and not to the list?

OOPS. No, it was intended for the list.

Reco

No problem, I was surprised so I kept it private, just in case.


Reply to: