On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 09:36 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote: > I agree with you that we need to have a motive to change and that > costs should be weighed carefully. We can make the case.
Yes. You've done some of that here. As we discussed on IRC, stuff like having GNOME tightly integrated with the journal would be very compelling. > What is unwise, in my opinion, is ifdef'ing or branching the user > experience to suit the code. There is as you say below, a short term and a long term. Short term, dealing with some ifdefs seems quite doable to me. But for the medium term, we should gather a list of features that depend on systemd. For each of those features, some of them can just not exist if GNOME isn't compiled with systemd. Structured logging probably falls into this category. Others, like systemd-as-gnome-session, would clearly be a huge amount of nontrivial duplication if we tried to support both. It's a no-going-back type situation. Really we're talking about 3 possible paths, in increasing order of dependence/benefit: 1) No hard dep on systemd, maintain current CK bits to a greater or lesser degree. 2) No hard dep on systemd, but delete CK bits. 3) Hard dep on systemd. You are talking about 3). Bastien was trying to accomplish 2) (but the current g-s-d code actually has a hard dep), and what I was going for in the *short* term is to maintain the status quo of 1). I'm not sure how much it makes sense though to spend a cycle or two doing 2) if what we're *really* going for is 3). _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
