previously on this list Philipp Kern contributed:
I'm not sure why our enterprise users don't count as users as well.
Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with
it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it
is an extremely small minority of
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with
it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it
is an extremely small minority of Debian users but possibly? a majority
Do you have any
previously on this list Olav Vitters contributed:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Of course they do even if the couple of people possibly concerned with
it that I know use.. is it Citrix? I was merely pointing out that it
is an extremely small minority of
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:14:57AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
E.g. XFCE either wants ConsoleKit, or logind. If you look at ConsoleKit,
you'll notice it is NOT maintained.
XFCE *needs* neither and in fact the vast vast majority of users do
not either.
I check the spec files for Fedora,
E.g. XFCE either wants ConsoleKit, or logind. If you look at ConsoleKit,
you'll notice it is NOT maintained.
XFCE *needs* neither and in fact the vast vast majority of users do
not either.
I check the spec files for Fedora, Mageia, openSUSE. They all seem to
require logind.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:58:16PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
How about Gentoo, Slackware, LFS and many many others?
What's that?
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:58:16PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
E.g. XFCE either wants ConsoleKit, or logind. If you look at ConsoleKit,
you'll notice it is NOT maintained.
XFCE *needs* neither and in fact the vast vast majority of users do
not either.
I check the spec
You said vast vast majority, you do the work! At the moment it seems
you're just changing goalpost as you go along.
Not at all. I meant functions of a desktop that the average users use
all along.
So the vast vast majority of users such as laptop users do not need
session tracking but may want
On 2013-10-28 10:58, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
By vast majority I was meaning user requirements and not distro
packagers expectations, user requirements is actually the metric which
should count the most and most users do not need session tracking, it
can actually get in the way (one user using many
* Simon McVittie:
On 26/10/13 21:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
Session tracking includes suspending/hibernating, because logind has
a mechanism to let apps delay suspend, which is necessary for things
like closing the inherent race condition in lock the screensaver when
we suspend... oh, oops,
Session tracking includes suspending/hibernating, because logind has
a mechanism to let apps delay suspend, which is necessary for things
like closing the inherent race condition in lock the screensaver when
we suspend... oh, oops, it didn't get scheduled until after we
resumed, so the old
* Simon McVittie:
Session tracking includes suspending/hibernating, because logind has
a mechanism to let apps delay suspend, which is necessary for things
like closing the inherent race condition in lock the screensaver when
we suspend... oh, oops, it didn't get scheduled until after we
On 26/10/13 21:23, Florian Weimer wrote:
Session tracking includes suspending/hibernating, because logind has
a mechanism to let apps delay suspend, which is necessary for things
like closing the inherent race condition in lock the screensaver when
we suspend... oh, oops, it didn't get
On 10/24/2013 11:08 PM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Thomas Goirand wrote:
We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
re-implement every
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:33:56PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Seems I misunderstood what logind was about. I thought it would force to
use specific Xdm implementations that would support it. So you do
confirm that it's not the case, and that we aren't forced into using
GDM? Or is it that
On 25 October 2013 10:00, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 03:33:56PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Seems I misunderstood what logind was about. I thought it would force to
use specific Xdm implementations that would support it. So you do
confirm that it's not the
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:52:16AM +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Simple question: logind is maintained, ConsoleKit is not. I have not
seen anyone raise this. Why?
That one is easy. Both are written by the same predominantly mayor
author and in some ways one project is superset of the
On 25/10/13 11:52, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
- using XDG_* environment variables, instead of LOGIND_* or SYSTEMD_*
variables
I assume you mainly mean XDG_RUNTIME_DIR here, since the rest are
basically user-level rather than system-level.
The point of the XDG_* family of variables is that
On 25 October 2013 13:13, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote:
On 25/10/13 11:52, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
- using XDG_* environment variables, instead of LOGIND_* or SYSTEMD_*
variables
I assume you mainly mean XDG_RUNTIME_DIR here, since the rest are
basically user-level rather than
On 25/10/13 13:57, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
No, I mean:
XDG_VTNR=7
XDG_SESSION_ID=c1
XDG_SESSION_PATH=/org/freedesktop/DisplayManager/Session0
XDG_SEAT_PATH=/org/freedesktop/DisplayManager/Seat0
XDG_SEAT=seat0
Oh, I wasn't aware of those... yes, using that namespace without a XDG
Hi there, Olav, thanks for contributing to the discussion,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
I don't see this happening, at all. When the GNOME release team is asked
for a solution we make *concrete* decisions: use X, or Y or maybe try
and support both. If you want
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes:
This means by adopting logind, we should switch init over to systemd,
otherwise a major package is using another major package in an
unsupported configuration (or at least in a way that the maintainer
doesn't wish to support)
No, it doesn’t mean
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 09:39:03AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Hi there, Olav, thanks for contributing to the discussion,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
I don't see this happening, at all. When the GNOME release team is asked
for a solution we make
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 02:11:28PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
It does mean that _installing_ GNOME/systemd needs to switch the
init system over.
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into. Remember they use different files, so this
will result
* Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no [131024 15:06]:
]] Marvin Renich
I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd.
You're aware that GNOME and systemd upstreams are two completely
distinct groups with (AFAIK) very little
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
I don't see this happening, at all. When the GNOME release team is asked
for a solution we make *concrete* decisions: use X, or Y or maybe try
and support both. If you want to influence these decisions, I
On 25/10/13 14:39, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:40:55PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
... a choice between something greatly supported (logind) vs
something abandoned (ConsoleKit).
...
Since the project (on the whole) is fairly divided, I don't think
we should trivialize
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:36:30 -0400
Marvin Renich m...@renich.org wrote:
However, it is obviously true that systemd as the default init
system is controversial, and that GNOME depends on it. While GNOME
may work with systemd installed but not PID 1 at the moment, in
another message Uoti
2013/10/25 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:36:30 -0400
Marvin Renich m...@renich.org wrote:
However, it is obviously true that systemd as the default init
system is controversial, and that GNOME depends on it. While GNOME
may work with systemd installed but not PID
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200
Matthias Klumpp m...@debian.org wrote:
2013/10/25 Neil Williams codeh...@debian.org:
It's not about whether the GNOME developers or maintainers should
have chosen one init system or another based on activity of that
system, it's about whether GNOME
Hi,
On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into.
are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*? I always assume there are
a few, but you make it sound like it is the majority ;-p
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200, Matthias Klumpp m...@debian.org
wrote:
No, but GNOME has a mission to create a great desktop-environment
which is easy to use and just works. And logind (in combination with
systemd) offers features to accomplish that goal and provides some
truly awesome
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:40:48PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
Yo, Holger!
On Freitag, 25. Oktober 2013, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
Supporting two different init systems is something I don't think
*anyone* wants to get into.
are you sure *so* many people are against *reality*? I
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013, at 20:40, Holger Levsen wrote:
Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this
is a good thing. (Or maybe it's not, but supporting just one would definitly
be our worst choice at this time.)
As a maintainer of several packages (~10) that provide
On Oct 25, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is a
No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
boot infrastructure:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:31:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Seriously, we are supporting more than one init system already and this is
a
No, we are not. Only a tiny number of packages do ship configuration
files for systemd and/or upstart, and the really important ones (the
boot
I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
do not believe this. If it is true, however, I would consider it
sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and
eliminate
without being micromanaged in what they put into their dependency
fields.
That's an odd comment as the dependencies should ideally be the very
minimal that are absolutely required. (I understand it may not be
always easy)
--
E.g. XFCE either wants ConsoleKit, or logind. If you look at ConsoleKit,
you'll notice it is NOT maintained.
XFCE *needs* neither and in fact the vast vast majority of users do
not either.
--
___
'Write programs that do one
You're aware that GNOME and systemd upstreams are two completely
distinct groups
But they do both have strong redhat links, coincidence or not.
--
___
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
On 25 October 2013 21:52, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
- it's pam module called pam_systemd instead of logind
It wouldn't be the first PAM module with an inappropriate name.
(e.g. pam_unix.so would be less confusing if it was called pam_nss.so IMHO,
as if I understand correctly it
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
That is my gripe, that's the core problem in GNOME. It's why I stopped
trying to develop code to work alongside GNOME and only work with XFCE
and Qt. GNOME upstream are toxic.
XFCE is same as GNOME:
- Supports ConsoleKit
- Supports
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:53:35PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
They choose the way most easy for them, which is behavior often
encountered inside the systemd-favoring community. Too bad.
You mean ConsoleKit with this? Why GNOME? Do you know it is on
freedesktop.org? Do you know there hasn't been
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
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
]] 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
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
]] 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
* Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no [131024 05:39]:
]] 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
On 10/24/2013 04:51 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] 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
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 09:49 -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
do not believe this. If it is true, however, I would consider it
sufficient justification to
Marvin Renich m...@renich.org wrote:
* Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no [131024 05:39]:
]] 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
Thomas Goirand wrote:
We've been reading again and again from systemd supporters that it's
modular, and that we can use only a subset of it if we like. Now, we're
reading a very different thing: that it's modular *but* we need to
re-implement every bit of it so that the modularity becomes
Le 24/10/2013 17:08, Uoti Urpala a écrit :
Surely you won't claim that tools
depending on systemd as init is an argument to not use systemd as init!
It's an argument for not depending on those tools, since we don't want
to (and can't) rely on systemd being the init system.
Regards.
]] Marvin Renich
I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd.
You're aware that GNOME and systemd upstreams are two completely
distinct groups with (AFAIK) very little overlap between them, right?
Even if one assume that they
]] Thomas Goirand
On 10/24/2013 04:51 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
[...]
If GNOME decides they want the DBus interfaces from systemd, that does
not put any obligation on systemd or the systemd maintainers to split
those bits of functionality out of systemd.
We've been reading again and
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:49:48AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two
in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who
GNOME is not. And I'm speaking as a GNOME release team member.
A video of GNOME 3.10
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
Roger Lynn ro...@rilynn.me.uk writes:
How often is the choice of default desktop re-evaluated, and how is this
done?
We have an argument about it at least once every release cycle. One of
the problems with the recurring argument is that we don't have a good
decision-making criteria. Another
On 25 October 2013 06:24, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
- GNOME 3.10 runs on OpenBSD (probably good to repeat this :P)
If I understand this correctly, upstream Gnome 3.10 will run fine on
OpenBSD.
However the Debian packages won't work on OpenBSD, as gnome-settings-daemon
depends on
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Brian May wrote:
gnome-settings-daemon depends on systemd
This is only true on Debian's Linux architectures:
http://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-settings-daemon/3.8.5-2/debian/control#L58
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 25 October 2013 10:25, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Brian May wrote:
gnome-settings-daemon depends on systemd
This is only true on Debian's Linux architectures:
http://sources.debian.net/src/gnome-settings-daemon/3.8.5-2/debian/control#L58
Oh,
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
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
