On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:28:45AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > 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).
I fully agree with this last statement and it's the main reason I raised some concerns in my initial mail. -- Antoine _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
