Ian Jackson wrote: > Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."): > > In all cases, it is unacceptable to put the burden of implementing > > logind on non-systemd systems on maintainers of packages that just need > > the logind interfaces. If it is not available, software such as gdm3 > > will depend, directly or indirectly, on systemd as PID 1, and that will > > be all. > > Firstly, I think the scenario where the required integration work is > not done is unlikely. But in that scenario, we have two choices: > (a) Effectively, drop all init systems other than systemd > (b) Effectively, drop GNOME
In this hypothetical scenario, suggesting that as an either-or implies that *not* dropping GNOME, and instead having it exist in the archive and depend on systemd, would effectively be dropping support for all init systems other than systemd. For that to be true, it would imply that GNOME has such a critical level of importance in the distribution that just having GNOME depend on systemd would make non-systemd inits unusable. If that were true, then (b) would fairly obviously not be an option. (Or to say that the other way around: if dropping GNOME were an option, then it must not be important enough for its dependency on systemd to be a problem.) And if it *isn't* true, then there's no forced dichotomy here: GNOME can depend on systemd, non-systemd inits can continue to work fine on systems not running GNOME, and the world doesn't end. (Given the hypothetical scenario above, I'm going to ignore the issue that this is about much more than just GNOME, and that there's a pile of other relevant software planning to depend on logind or systemd in the future. Nonetheless, it's worth poking at the logic in the hypothetical, since it seems generally applicable to more cases.) - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140214151322.GA20325@leaf