1 |
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:19:34AM -0500, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
2 |
> On 08/07/2013 10:16 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
3 |
> > Also, I think we should stop spending a lot of time trying to keep it |
4 |
> > working with openrc, we simply don't have resources to do that at the |
5 |
> > moment (even Debian/Ubuntu people are stick with systemd-204 because |
6 |
> > they don't have resources to keep logind working without systemd in |
7 |
> > newer versions). Now, we are needing to put a lot of effort on trying to |
8 |
> > provide unit files and provide systemd related fixes in the tree because |
9 |
> > we haven't (in general) pay attention to systemd at all => I think we |
10 |
> > should put more efforts on it than trying to work on hacks to prevent |
11 |
> > systemd dependency. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I agree that there's no point in hacking software that voluntarily ties |
14 |
> itself to systemd to *not* be tied to it, but dependency on any single |
15 |
> init system is a bad idea. There are multiple kernels, multiple libc's, |
16 |
> multiple device management layers, multiple inits, etc. Preventing |
17 |
> dependency on certain things is a good way to enforce software diversity. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Granted, in systemd's case Gentoo's not the place to do it. It's the |
20 |
> upstreams that should be convinced or told not to depend on a single |
21 |
> init system. |
22 |
|
23 |
As the primary upstream for OpenRc, I can assure you that work on it is |
24 |
not stopping; OpenRc isn't dead. |
25 |
|
26 |
I agree with this position too though. It isn't up to the gentoo teams |
27 |
to try to force things like gnome-3.8 to work with OpenRc; the upstream |
28 |
projects should be convinced that depending on systemd (or any other |
29 |
init system specifically) is not a good idea. |
30 |
|
31 |
William |