Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:04:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Please recall the context here: this whole aside started with an objection >> to my contention that adopting upstart requires disassembly and redoing of >> an integration that we would otherwise not have to disassemble. Nowhere >> in my message did I say that we would or could not do that disassembly if >> we adopted upstart; I said that it was work that we otherwise wouldn't >> have to do. > >> That's the intended context of my point above: I don't think we're going >> to port GNOME to a non-systemd infrastructure, in the sense of carrying >> significant patches to GNOME to adopt it to, say, not using logind. I >> think GNOME will continue to use systemd APIs heavily, which makes GNOME >> less portable. That means that systems that are not capable of running >> those systemd components will need to either port them or develop >> alternatives. > >> I don't consider this wailing or gnashing of teeth, but rather a realistic >> look at what efforts the project is talking about committing to, as >> opposed to supporting people working on if they so choose. > > Ok. I think our core point of disagreement here, then, is in our assessment > of how much work we think this actually is (for the Linux case, not for the > non-Linux case). I think the actual package maintenance to make this happen > is not even a weekend's worth of free time, and therefore represents a > negligible committment of resources on Debian's part, given that this > dissassembly/integration has already been done in Ubuntu.
I'm making the assumption, here, that the work you're talking about is making logind and other such services run without systemd, rather than attempting to make GNOME and other desktop environments run without those services. I think you're underestimating the amount of *ongoing* effort required here. I'd point out that systemd in Debian is still stuck at version 204, despite the very nice features available in 205 and newer, specifically because logind dared to make use of those features. I fully expect systemd to continue producing new and interesting features and *using* them, requiring alternative implementations to either reimplement more of systemd or create an increasingly invasive fork of it. And while I think it's *possible* to continue doing so on an ongoing basis, that's work that could be spent on other productive tasks that don't involve reimplementation. In any case, I sincerely hope that the cost of doing that work is borne entirely by people who find it a worthwhile activity rather than a monumental waste of time. And I furthermore hope that an unmangled and unforked version of systemd continues to be available in Debian for folks who want to run the init system that continues to create functionality so useful that the proponents of upstart are willing to do a huge amount of work in order to adopt most of it other than the init system itself. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org