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

Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd

Hash: SHA512

On 07/19/2014 07:02 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> On Vi, 18 iul 14, 21:32:10, Tom Furie wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 05:44:37PM +0100, Brian wrote:
>>> I have no testing install to hand at the moment so perhaps you
>>> could list these packages for us. Please indicate the ones for
>>> which there is no "real need".
>> Here is a fairly naive list of packages which have a hard
>> dependency on packages which have a hard dependency on systemd. The
>> items beginning at column one are the packages which depend on
>> systemd, the items indented beneath "Reverse Depends:" are the
>> packages which depend on that package. By "hard dependency" I have
>> excluded packages that only make a recommendation/suggestion or
>> offer an alternative. I have also removed anything that is
>> systemd-specific.
>> There are a few items that make me wonder what the next level of
>> the tree would look like, but I think that would be a bit unwieldy
>> for the list so haven't checked.
>> libpam-systemd
>>   Reverse Depends:
>>     udisks2
>>     policykit-1
>>     network-manager
>>     lightdm
>>     gnome-bluetooth
>>     gdm3
> These are all quite obvious: libpam-systemd is necessary for them to
> interact with systemd-logind, which is part of the systemd package.
> The alternative (ConsoleKit) is unmaintained and nobody has stepped
> up to pick up its maintenance.

And how many of them - or, equally relevant, packages which depend on
them - actually need to interact with logind?

> systemd-shim is also falling behind, the package in sid already
> dropped it as alternative to systemd-sysv. In practice this means
> that using any of the above in sid (and soon also testing) requires
> booting with systemd, unless somebody provides an alternative.

See the bugs I posted about recently. This is apparently already fixed,
just not yet uploaded because a dependency is not yet packaged, which in
turn was stalled due to a "who's going to package this?" conflict, which
is apparently now resolved, so that this is now (or shortly will be)
waiting on ftpmaster AFAIK.

>> gnome-settings-daemon
>>   Reverse Depends:
>>     gnome-core
>>     indicator-session
>>     gnome-shell
>>     gnome-session
>>     gnome-power-manager
>>     gnome-session-flashback
>>     gnome-packagekit-session
>>     gnome-music
>>     gnome-control-center
>>     gdm3
> I'm guessing gnome-settings-daemon can be used to configure systemd.
> It might be possible to demote this to a Recommends, assuming
> somebody is willing to make sure it *continues* to work correctly
> without systemd installed.
> However, since Gnome more or less depends on systemd anyway

Which points out a large part of the problem, right there: most Gnome
programs do not themselves need to interact with systemd itself (or any
component thereof), but due to the dependency chain passing through
Gnome, installing one of those programs will result in installing
systemd. That qualifies them as "package[s] which depend ... indirectly
on systemd ... without real need"; they do not need systemd, but they
indirectly depend on it anyway.

The problem is that each step of the dependency chain is there for good
reason, at least from the perspective of the developers / maintainers of
that particular package - but the end result is that a program which
does not need systemd is packaged in a way which requires systemd.

- --
   The Wanderer

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


Reply to: