On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:31:41PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 14 février 2014 à 13:50 +0000, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > Josselin Mouette writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."): > > > In all cases, it is unacceptable to put the burden of implementing > > > logind on non-systemd systems on maintainers of packages that just need > > > the logind interfaces. If it is not available, software such as gdm3 > > > will depend, directly or indirectly, on systemd as PID 1, and that will > > > be all. > > > > Firstly, I think the scenario where the required integration work is > > not done is unlikely. But in that scenario, we have two choices: > > (a) Effectively, drop all init systems other than systemd > > (b) Effectively, drop GNOME
>From my personal view, GNOME should not block any work to make GNOME work properly on other init systems. I'd love something which implements the various systemd APIs, but then on *BSD and so on. GNOME developers have worked and work on various infrastructure projects as well. Various of these are freedesktop.org projects. Hereby sometimes causing confusion. E.g. ConsoleKit and UPower are/were not driven by GNOME; these are freedesktop.org projects. GNOME is totally open to anyone providing alternative implantations for systemd APIs, though IMO we're not a party in that. I'd love if someone would write something that works on *BSD. Note that there are a few GNOME developers people who've installed FreeBSD for the first time ever just to improve the *BSD experience (within the scope of GNOME). In case there is a distribution policy that prevents GNOME from being packaged then we'll work with the distribution to integrate the distributions work. Provided that the patches are reasonable. If distribution policy is more demanding than what the distribution can cope with itself, then there is no problem making a reasonable request in how we can assist. In case of init system development, I suggest first asking init system developers for assistance. However, if all fails then seems unfortunate if GNOME is dropped. I don't any sudden change in the scope of GNOME (meaning: we are not init system developers and we should limit ourselves to ensure APIs could have an alternative implementation). > You can have (c) GNOME depends on systemd. And (d) have other init systems do the maintenance for alternative implementations. Have upstream and/or package maintainers be reasonable in integrating that work. > Same for KDE and Xfce, BTW, since they are going in the same direction. Agreed, various things are freedesktop.org projects. -- Regards, Olav (all comments my own POV, not on behalf of GNOME) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org