Daniel Reurich wrote: > On 04/03/16 12:42, Nuno Magalhães wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > Considering the systemd team has been focusing on sd-bus, how > > systemd-free is dbus? > > > Our package doesn't depend on systemd, libsystemd0 or libpam-systemd
It does constitute fundamental protocol used and depended on by many parts of the systemd ecosystem, however doesn't involve the init system, so you're free of that. Being that so much complex code is built on dbus, Pottering and co guarantee that dbus will not be broken by updates in the protocol. There is some question (at least I am ignorant) whether how backward compatible sdbus will be with dbus. Also will you have a choice to not use kernel-mediated boundary crossing sdbus in future? So there is some borginess(tm) there. IIRC Linus commented that the only reason for sdbus is that dbus code is badly implemented. So caveat emptor, and as the japanese say, TADA YORI TAKAI MONO GA NAI (nothing is more expensive than [what appears to be given for] free.) People should think about that when signing up for Gmail! cheers, Joel (yes, I have a gmail account, another type of borginess) > -- > Daniel Reurich > Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd. > 021 797 722 > > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng -- Joel Roth _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng