Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 10/24/2013 10:45 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote: I think you'd basically need a completely separate logind package for non-systemd systems. And if you think this is work that must be done, then it is YOUR responsibility to do it. It's not the systemd maintainers' responsibility to implement new

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Jonathan Dowland
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant. This is work that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not being done. I have a lot of respect for the Debian systemd maintainers and I think it should

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Thibaut Paumard
Le 24/10/2013 10:54, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: So first of all, how hard it is to split is irrelevant. This is work that must be done, and Debian should not accept excuses for it not being done. I have a lot of respect for

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Tollef Fog Heen
]] Thibaut Paumard The split has already been done, hasn't it? Merely installing the systemd package does not make systemd the active init system on the machine. You need to do it yourself or install the systemd-sysv package for that to happen. No, that's not a split. That's a set of

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-24 Thread Roger Lynn
On 24/10/13 03:00, Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org: Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services should be separated out in the packaging. Some of the services consume

let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org: [...] If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd, this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support systemd. Well, that's one more

Re: let's split the systemd binary package [Was, Re: systemd effectively mandatory now due to GNOME]

2013-10-23 Thread Uoti Urpala
Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org: [...] If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd, this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support