Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> writes: > Imho that's a gross overstatement. Over more than a year, an Ubuntu > GNOME team was established and became official ubuntu flavour with so > goal and purpose of shipping GNOME3 in it's full glory. If distro watch > is any indication they are fast growing ubuntu flavour, outpacing the > more established ones like e.g. Xubuntu. The demand for such flavour is > growing, with highly positive reviews from critics and general > public. There is a group of volunteers who contribute to making it > work. I've personally used it, and it's quite wonderful and capable > desktop environment. I think there is some degree of heresy to claim > that GNOME3 is only supported with systemd-init pid1. That was the case > intermittently, until majority of pid1 checks were replaced by more > correct ones.
Insofar as this is evidence that it's possible to make GNOME work with option 2 (run logind without systemd), this is certainly valid information, but I think this is information that we already have. As I said in my original writeup, I believe the main challenge with option 2 for jessie is not in figuring out *how* to do the work, but in identifying *who* is going to do the work. (Beyond jessie, this will require ongoing resources to maintain if it's not purely a transitional issue, but that's a somewhat separate discussion.) And I'll note that Sjoerd said exactly the same thing. Saying that it's easy is fine, particularly if you have details as to why it's easy. What we're not going to do is say that therefore the existing GNOME maintainers in Debian must do it. That is not how we work as a project, and that is not how we're going to work as a project. If they don't want to do the work, no one is going to force them to do it. Please instead note Steve's comments on maintaining logind as a separate package, which is the productive way forward and is a way to get to the second solution in my original message. Volunteering to do the work and finding a way to do it in a minimally intrusive fashion is the way to show that it's straightforward. > Even if that was the case, why should one Desktop Environment dictate > for all Debian users what the pid1 should be? We are debating this > decision not only on behalf of Debian developers, maintainers of GNOME, > but ultimately on behalf of all our users. Which significantly includes > !gnome3 and/or headless deployments. I think you have gotten confused as to which part of this thread that you're participating in (which is understandable, given that it's a giant). This discussion was prompted by my question to Sjoerd about what the impact to GNOME would be for supporting sysvinit in jessie, and for supporting a configuration without logind in jessie. That's information that we need to have in the Technical Committee in order to decide what options are reasonable to include in a discussion. Sjoerd was responding to that question in his role as a current Debian GNOME maintainer based on his experience with the packaging and with the current GNOME code requirements. In other words, this discussion is specifically about GNOME because I *asked* for it to be specifically about GNOME, because we have some reason to believe it might be particularly heavily impacted. If you have a separate analysis, I also very much appreciate your comments and analysis. But getting upset at him for providing his opinion is directly counterproductive and just makes it harder for the Technical Committee to do its work. Now it's less likely that someone else with relevant technical knowledge will be willing to volunteer it in public, for fear of having someone else jump on them. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- 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/87ppo79p51....@windlord.stanford.edu
