Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > > I don't see this happening, at all. When the GNOME release team is asked > > for a solution we make *concrete* decisions: use X, or Y or maybe try > > and support both. If you want to influence these decisions, I want > > something more than to a choice between something greatly supported > > (logind) vs something abandoned (ConsoleKit). > > So, I have a mild problem with framing the problem this way, when the
> This means by adopting logind, we should switch init over to systemd, > otherwise a major package is using another major package in an > unsupported configuration (or at least in a way that the maintainer > doesn't wish to support) > > > Since the project (on the whole) is fairly divided, I don't think we > should trivialize this to "actively developed" vs "cruft" at this stage. I think you misinterpreted his message somehow. The way I see it: In this thread GNOME has been accused of bad faith, of things like intentionally breaking non-systemd configurations for the sake of it and using their position as an installed desktop environment to push "unrelated" init system changes. However, in reality the practical choice presented to GNOME has been between: * Use good well-supported interfaces. * Use crappy abandoned interfaces. With very little to no activity and no visible prospects of anyone maintaining them; some people are vocally pushing for them to be supported, but not doing the work. It should be obvious that you don't need to assume bad faith to understand why GNOME would choose the first alternative, even if it does imply a dependency on systemd. I don't see how explaining this situation would be an attempt to "trivialize" things. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1382711886.1856.75.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid
