On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: > On 2014-02-18 1:54 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:> On > Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: >>> I'm curious as to the extent of these programs, and to what extent >>> they *truly* require systemd. > >> I don't understand what you mean by "the extent of these programs". > > Sorry, worded that badly... I meant, basically, how many programs now > require systemd...
The packages requiring loingd. >>> I can't for the life of me think of any reason that server daemons >>> like postfix, dovecot, apache, etc would or could ever *require* >>> systemd. > >> Neither of those packages would ever require systemd (nor any init >> system). If they do, I would call that a bug. > > Then why should XFCE requiring it also not be a bug? If XFCE requires systemd the *init system*, I agree it's a bug. > I totally get XFCE *supporting* the use of logind, but why should it ever > support *only* logind? That would seem insane to me. If someone writes the support for non-logind systems (like the *BSDs), everything is dandy and you and I are happy as clams. >> All of those programs can use features provided by systemd (like >> socket activation, > > OpenRC will supposedly soon support the use of sockets... I suppose it will be different; but probably it can be made to work for both. Again, if *someone* writes the support for each. >> using the more advances features of the journal, etc.), but they can >> be made optional. > > Exactly... it is the question of *requiring* it, or *only* supporting it, > that doesn't make sense to me. If the project supports both no one will complain. The thing is that there will be projects that will only actively support logind, because it works so much better than ConsoleKit. That's the case with GNOME. If someone writes the famous logind replacement, again, everybody is happy as a clam. >>> Also, for those that do require it, what feature of systemd (that >>> doesn't have an alternative available) is it that the program >>> uses? > >> Again, basically logind. And there *is* ConsoleKit available as an >> alternative. > > Ok, so the numerous times you and others have made comments about the 'many > new features' of systemd, you only really meant logind? No, we meant logind, the journal, hostnamed, timedated, the socket activation, the new networking tool that will arrive with 209, and all the features to handle and monitor services. By the way, both GNOME and KDE (and I'm sure Xfce, eventually) are planning on using systemd --user to handle the desktop session. The normal session handling will keep working in both desktops, but (and this is just an educated guess from my part) I think it will happen the same as with logind: the new way to do things will work so much better, and the other way will bitrot. Unless *someone* gives time and code to maintain it. >> But basically all the GNOME developers are using systemd, so the CK >> support is getting bitrotten. That's why the Gentoo GNOME team decided >> to depend on systemd, although the requirement is really logind. >> >> If *someone* creates a logind compatible replacement (it uses a simple >> dbus API[1]), then even the GNOME suit in Gentoo could drop the >> requirement for systemd. Ubuntu has been working on something like >> this, and Mark Shuttleworth said that they will continue to work on >> it, even with Ubuntu choosing systemd[2], so if/when that's available, >> there will be no program that *requires* systemd, AFAIK. >> >> (Well, gnome-logs depends on the journal, but it's a GUI for a systemd >> specific feature). >> >> Like I've been saying; no one is forcing nothing on no one. But >> someone has to write/support/maintain the alternative. > > Excellent... so apparently, the only real new features that have any kind of > dependency are logind and maybe journald, systemd --user will be used at lest by GNOME and KDE. > so all that would be needed are compatible replacements, Exactly. If someone is willing and able to write and support those replacements, your non-systemd world doesn't needs to change. > and all of the noise about systemd consuming the world has been just that... > noise? That's been my *whole* point. Nobody is forcing nothing on no one. Now, from the point of view of a distribution, they can decide that the supported init system is only systemd. That's their choice. That's what Fedora, OpenSUSE and Arch did. Debian will set systemd as *default* init, but it will keep (I suppose) supporting multiple init systems. They need to, since the non-Linux ports will never get systemd support. I'm pretty sure Ubuntu will switch at some point to only support systemd. I think Gentoo will be like Debian; we will support multiple init systems basically forever (and Gentoo also works in FreeBSD). It's possible the council will decide to make systemd the default init system... in twenty or forty years. So no, the sky isn't falling, and the systemd virus is not spreading to touch everything you know. However, if someone doesn't step up and provide the functionality provided for systemd, and some projects want to use said functionality, there will be packages that will require systemd. You want to use those packages and not use systemd? Step in and contribute. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
