On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org>
wrote:
Le mardi 31 décembre 2013 à 18:31 +0000, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Bug#727708: init system other points, and
conclusion"):
> What about the cgroup management functionality that newer
versions of
> logind require? Should the systemd maintainers also reimplement
it in
> upstart?
This is a somewhat separate issue, but: I think bundling the single
cgroup writer into systemd is a very poor design choice. I think
the
bad consequences of that choice should be borne by the people who
made
it.
By writing this, it strikes me that you must have seriously
misunderstood some fundamental concepts of systemd. The new logind
behavior is unrelated to the “single cgroup writer” matter,
because
there is no single cgroup writer as of today. I spent quite some time
to
summarize facts on cgroup management at Andreas’ request, and it
seems
you haven’t even read them. I find this very rude from a member of
the
technical committee to not try to understand the technical issues
before
deciding what other people are supposed to do.
Which brings me to the other point: you are not going to decide what
people want to spend their time on. If systemd is selected as the
default, the systemd maintainers are not going to ask Steve to fix
their
upgrades problem for them. And if upstart is selected, you will
certainly not ask members of the systemd community - from which Debian
would have just excluded itself - to fix Debian’s problems with not
having systemd.
Nobody is preventing anybody from spending time on re-integrating
systemd and its services.
For an example I know, if having a working GNOME on Linux means a
dependency on systemd, then it will have a dependency on systemd. If
the
TC overrules that, like it did the last time one of its members felt
offended by a dependency in a package he doesn’t use, the
alternative
will have to be developed and made available by someone. From my
discussions so far with other members of the GNOME team, that someone
will not be a member of that group.
Do not assume that people who dislike GNOME's systemd dependency do not
use GNOME. I do not use GNOME, but my sanity depends on gsettingsd (my
touchpad is broken and only gsettingsd can fix it), as well as my
aesthetic happiness (I like Pantheon shell, which uses gsettingsd and
gnomecc).
Let’s say that GNOME migrates to systemd user sessions, like what is
planned for GNOME 2.12 (yes, the version we intend to ship in jessie,
ain’t that sweet). You can decide to cripple GNOME with Ubunbu
patches
instead, but that won’t be GNOME anymore; just an unbranded Ubuntu
desktop. And you will not ask the people who spend their time
providing
a serious, upstream-friendly alternative to that desktop to spend it
on
dumping Ubuntu packages in Debian instead.
If GNOME depends on systemd, that is fine, but GNOME does not get to
dictate Debian's choice. The GNOME maintainers need to do whatever is
necessary for GNOME to run on Debian, including maintaining systemd and
systemd units, patching to work with Upstart, or removing functionality
that depends on systemd (which should not at all be basic
functionality, but only small stuff).
Even if that non-basic functionality is removed, **it will still be
GNOME**. At least, it should be based on GNOME's own technical
conclusion.
It seems like you are saying that because GNOME has decided to depend
on systemd, that Debian needs to cater to that decision. Debian does
not. In fact, Debian //should not//, because GNOME consciously decided
(or will decide) to break non-systemd compatibility, and knew that
doing so would break GNOME on Debian (in its current state).
Cheers,
Cameron Norman
So unless the TC wants to remove a great number of packages from the
archive, you need to take into account the fact that some voluntary
manpower is required to implement your decision.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1388520832.5187.31.camel@tomoe
