Hi Steven, thanks for taking this to the list and for doing some further investigations. That's quite among the best possible outcomes of that blog post of mine ;-)
On Dienstag, 3. Juni 2014, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> I've taken a look in linux-amd64 sid and it is mostly true.
thats what I'm looking at too. though sid and jessie too. The url I have
specified however has these packages:
gdm3|gnome-session|gnome-shell*|gnome-core|gnome|gnome-desktop-
environment|task-gnome-desktop|razorqt|sucrose-0.96|xfswitch-plugin|mate-core|
mate-desktop-environment*|task-kde-desktop)
> I agree none of these packages seem to be installable without bringing
> in systemd and systemd-sysv:
>
> gdm3 gnome-session gnome-shell gnome-core gnome
> gnome-desktop-environment task-gnome-desktop razorqt sucrose-0.96
> xfswitch-plugin mate-core mate-desktop-environment task-kde-desktop
>
> kde-standard kde-plasma-desktop kde-plasma-netbook
piuparts has not gotten this far with testing yet (other depends of these
packages are probably in the failed testing state), but I have added those to
my list.
as well as ltsp-server-standalone which piuparts.d.o just found now also
depending on systemd-sysv
> But the following *are* installable without any systemd packages;
> seemingly only if you specify --no-install-recommends for some reason:
piuparts uses --no-install-recommends by default and piuparts.debian.org does
use this default.
> kde-baseapps kde-runtime kde-workspace plasma-desktop
> [I think that's all of task-kde-desktop except for udisks2]
>
> Most notably installable without any systemd packages:
>
> xfce4 task-xfce-desktop
those indeed aren't on my list, but "xfswitch-plugin" is, and that is part of
XFCE which is why stated what I staed.
> It may be that piuparts prefers to bring in systemd sometimes, but the
> dependency chain could still be satisfied some other way without it.
piuparts just uses apt-get for installations. own code is just used to
calculate which packages should be tested next.
> If you agree, could you pretty-please amend the false statement in your
> blog post to at least mention XFCE does not depend on systemd?
well, to me the current question here is how much is "xfswitch-plugin"
essential part of XFCE?
(once this is clear I'll be glad to amend my blog post.)
> Because
> there is too much false information relating to systemd circulating
> already (for or against it), and it being such a hot issue, that I think
> we should be especially careful to avoid adding to it.
I thought it's useful to bring up some facts and maybe some false statements,
so these can be corrected and more facts are known to more people...
Oh, and systemd-sysv should me made essential soon or sysvinit-core should be
made non-essential (or whatever the next steps are to implement the decision
from #727708) ASAP - because there will be this freeze in 5 months...
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
