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
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 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 Deb
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
> 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 wan
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.
> >
>
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
> > > 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
> requ
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 Fed
* 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
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 g
* 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 w
> "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
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 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
- Suppor
On 25 October 2013 21:52, Dmitrijs Ledkovs 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 uses NSS lib
> 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
> 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
> 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)
--
___
> > 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
> > elimin
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
On Oct 25, Holger Levsen 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: mounting local/remote bl
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 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*?
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
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 features for sess
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
Ser
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26:06 +0200
Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2013/10/25 Neil Williams :
> > 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 developers even have the option of
2013/10/25 Neil Williams :
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:36:30 -0400
> Marvin Renich 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
>> an
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:36:30 -0400
Marvin Renich 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 Urpala says that
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 trivial
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 decisio
* Tollef Fog Heen [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 overlap b
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 resul
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 *
Paul Tagliamonte 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 that.
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 wan
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
spe
On 25 October 2013 13:13, Simon McVittie 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 system-level.
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 they'
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 th
On 25 October 2013 10:00, Olav Vitters 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 case, and th
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 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
On 25 October 2013 10:25, Paul Wise 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, ok, good,
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, ema
On 25 October 2013 06:24, Olav Vitters 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 systemd which doe
Roger Lynn 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 problem is that t
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 :
>> > 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 fun
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 ru
]] 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 a
]] 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
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.
signat
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 e
Marvin Renich wrote:
>* Tollef Fog Heen [131024 05:39]:
>> ]] Steve Langasek
>>
>> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> > > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
>> > > > [...]
>> > > >> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends
>on systemd,
>> > > >>
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
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 :
[...]
> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on systemd,
> this might be a worrying trend,
* Tollef Fog Heen [131024 05:39]:
> ]] Steve Langasek
>
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
> > > > [...]
> > > >> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on
> > > >> systemd,
> > > >> this might be a worryi
]] 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 o
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 respec
]] Steve Langasek
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
> > > [...]
> > >> 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
> > >> system
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 shoul
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 implemen
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
> > > [...]
> > >> 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
> > >> syst
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek :
> > [...]
> >> 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 reason t
64 matches
Mail list logo
