Re: brasero requires gvfs
Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> writes:
> On 07/09/14 18:31, lee wrote:
>> As to console-kit, it was awful in that it might create a ridiculous
>> number of processes, and I used to disable it because I never needed
>> it. Can you disable logind?
>
> If you don't need anything that depends on gnome-settings-daemon,
> libpam-systemd, lighttpd, live-config-systemd, sogo, systemd-cron,
> systemd-dbg, systemd-sysv, or systemd-ui, you don't have to have the
> executable file /lib/systemd/systemd-logind on your hard disk *at all*
> (the items I listed are the things which Depends: systemd, and I'll
> note that systemd-cron and systemd-ui are optional even on systems
> which are using systemd as PID 1).
>
> If you aren't using a GUI, or your choice of GUI on Debian uses a
> traditional window manager (and doesn't use gdm3 or lightdm as its X
> display manager if it even has one) rather than being one of the
> "desktop environments", then it looks like it's still pretty easy to
> build a useful, working Debian jessie system that doesn't contain
> anything which Depends: libpam-systemd.
I'm using fvwm. I don't have use for what they call "desktop system".
Such things are only getting into my way and have proven to be
impossible to configure to my needs without unreasonable efforts, if at
all.
I don't have gnome-settings-daemon installed on Fedora, which uses
systemd.
On the Debian VM, it says that dbus depends on libsystemd-login0, so how
could I remove that without having to remove xfce?
A "desktop system" is merely a "desktop system", and an init system is
merely an init system. It is a bug when a "desktop system" like xfce
depends on a particular init system, or parts thereof, no matter if
directly or indirectly, especially for a distribution that intends to
support a choice of init systems so that users can choose what they want
to use and what not.
This bug just shows again how systemd is taking everything over, which
is a bad thing. Systemd has become a single piece of software for a
very limited purpose without which more and more totally unrelated
software for totally different purposes isn't going to work anymore.
That's like you're required to have, let's say, MS Windows installed on
your hardware to be able to use it.
Others have said this before. I finally realise what they mean. Why
aren't all distributions standing up against this but instead embrace
it?
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Reply to: