| 1 |
On 08/07/2013 10:16 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> Also, I think we should stop spending a lot of time trying to keep it |
| 3 |
> working with openrc, we simply don't have resources to do that at the |
| 4 |
> moment (even Debian/Ubuntu people are stick with systemd-204 because |
| 5 |
> they don't have resources to keep logind working without systemd in |
| 6 |
> newer versions). Now, we are needing to put a lot of effort on trying to |
| 7 |
> provide unit files and provide systemd related fixes in the tree because |
| 8 |
> we haven't (in general) pay attention to systemd at all => I think we |
| 9 |
> should put more efforts on it than trying to work on hacks to prevent |
| 10 |
> systemd dependency. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I agree that there's no point in hacking software that voluntarily ties |
| 13 |
itself to systemd to *not* be tied to it, but dependency on any single |
| 14 |
init system is a bad idea. There are multiple kernels, multiple libc's, |
| 15 |
multiple device management layers, multiple inits, etc. Preventing |
| 16 |
dependency on certain things is a good way to enforce software diversity. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Granted, in systemd's case Gentoo's not the place to do it. It's the |
| 19 |
upstreams that should be convinced or told not to depend on a single |
| 20 |
init system. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Forgive me if my interpretation is wrong; it just seemed to me that you |
| 23 |
were all for vertical integration (systemd dependency as a whole) and |
| 24 |
the systemd creep is one of the reasons I came to Gentoo. I'd hate to |
| 25 |
see developers abandoning their work on OpenRC or other Gentoo projects |
| 26 |
to embrace the Red Hat campaign. |
Archives