On 2014-02-18 1:54 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:> On
Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>> I'm curious as to the extent of these programs, and to what extent
>> they *truly* require systemd.
> I don't understand what you mean by "the extent of these programs".
Sorry, worded that badly... I meant, basically, how many programs now
require systemd...
I can't for the life of me think of any reason that server daemons
like postfix, dovecot, apache, etc would or could ever *require*
systemd.
> Neither of those packages would ever require systemd (nor any init
> system). If they do, I would call that a bug.
Then why should XFCE requiring it also not be a bug?
I totally get XFCE *supporting* the use of logind, but why should it
ever support *only* logind? That would seem insane to me.
> All of those programs can use features provided by systemd (like
> socket activation,
OpenRC will supposedly soon support the use of sockets...
> using the more advances features of the journal, etc.), but they can
> be made optional.
Exactly... it is the question of *requiring* it, or *only* supporting
it, that doesn't make sense to me.
Also, for those that do require it, what feature of systemd (that
doesn't have an alternative available) is it that the program
uses?
> Again, basically logind. And there *is* ConsoleKit available as an
> alternative.
Ok, so the numerous times you and others have made comments about the
'many new features' of systemd, you only really meant logind?
> But basically all the GNOME developers are using systemd, so the CK
> support is getting bitrotten. That's why the Gentoo GNOME team decided
> to depend on systemd, although the requirement is really logind.
>
> If *someone* creates a logind compatible replacement (it uses a simple
> dbus API[1]), then even the GNOME suit in Gentoo could drop the
> requirement for systemd. Ubuntu has been working on something like
> this, and Mark Shuttleworth said that they will continue to work on
> it, even with Ubuntu choosing systemd[2], so if/when that's available,
> there will be no program that *requires* systemd, AFAIK.
>
> (Well, gnome-logs depends on the journal, but it's a GUI for a systemd
> specific feature).
>
> Like I've been saying; no one is forcing nothing on no one. But
> someone has to write/support/maintain the alternative.
Excellent... so apparently, the only real new features that have any
kind of dependency are logind and maybe journald, so all that would be
needed are compatible replacements, and all of the noise about systemd
consuming the world has been just that... noise?
