1 |
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 01:58:41AM +0100, Steven J. Long wrote: |
2 |
> > William Hubbs wrote: |
3 |
> > > waltdnes wrote: |
4 |
> > >> Question... when Sun made OpenOffice depend on Java (also a Sun |
5 |
> > >> product) did Gentoo developers run around suggesting that Java be made a |
6 |
> > >> part of the core Gentoo base system? I don't think so. If a user wants |
7 |
> > >> to run GNOME badly enough, he'll switch to systemd. I don't see why the |
8 |
> > >> rest of us (i.e. non-users of GNOME) should have to follow along and |
9 |
> > >> reconfigure our systems. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog. |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > I don't interpret what he is saying that way. I think what he is |
12 |
> > > talking about is that we are trying to get teams to support non-systemd |
13 |
> > > setups when upstreams do not, like with gnome. |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > Gnome now has a hard dependency on systemd (for gnome newer than 3.8). |
16 |
> > > Some folks want to use gnome without systemd and are putting that under |
17 |
> > > the gentoo is about choice banner and want us to support them. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I haven't seen anyone say that in this entire discussion, but I might have |
20 |
> missed something. "If a user wants to run GNOME, he [can] switch to systemd" |
21 |
> is clearly not saying that, so we're left with an enigmatic "some" who haven't |
22 |
> posted to this thread, afaics. |
23 |
|
24 |
The point I'm trying to make here is that for gnome >=3.8, upstream |
25 |
gnome does not support running gnome without systemd afaik. |
26 |
|
27 |
> It's clear to me that users have been forced through lots of changes over the |
28 |
> last 5 years, even where we just want to carry on using our machines the way |
29 |
> we always have. Isn't that what convenience layers are about? So Walter's |
30 |
> point stands. |
31 |
|
32 |
No it doesn't, because Gentoo Linux isn't requiring you to run systemd. |
33 |
|
34 |
> > >> Fabio Erculiani wrote |
35 |
> > >>> So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world? |
36 |
> > >>> (It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their |
37 |
> > >>> own reality check. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Gnome can depend on w/e upstream require. How is that the whole world? |
40 |
> It's not even the whole Linux ecosystem, and I can't see Qt giving up cross- |
41 |
> platform independence, just to work with systemd. That was never going to |
42 |
> happen, so it was never going to happen in KDE either, however enthused a |
43 |
> few of its volunteers were, since KDE is a showcase for Qt. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> You're right: reality-checks are clearly needed all over the place. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> > >> You are effectively calling not-using-GNOME isolationist. Let's just |
48 |
> > >> say I disagree with you on that. BTW, see my sig. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> It's clear to me that systemd devs are the real isolationists: everyone |
51 |
> else has to do everything their way, or they'll throw their toys out of the |
52 |
> pram, including the ones they stole. The real trouble with "N+1 True Way" is |
53 |
> the contortions it forces them through, as they explain why "this time" they've |
54 |
> got it right, and how badly they got it wrong last time. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> That wouldn't be an issue-- everyone makes mistakes-- if they hadn't rubbished |
57 |
> everyone else who pointed out issues along the way. After a few years of that, |
58 |
> sorry but enough already. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> Matthew Thode wrote: |
61 |
> > If upstream gnome has that dep on systemd then I kinda think we should |
62 |
> > too (technical decision, not one I like personally) |
63 |
> |
64 |
> I think we should too: all anyone has said is "Gnome is not Linux". Presenting |
65 |
> its choices as representative of every DE and upstream project is simply |
66 |
> misleading. |
67 |
|
68 |
I haven't done that, and I don't know of anyone else who has. |
69 |
|
70 |
> Claiming that making it easier to use systemd is in everyone's interests is |
71 |
> clearly untrue as well, since many of us our interests are caught up with a |
72 |
> modular system we can build and configure how we require. That's why we came to |
73 |
> Gentoo, and why we stay. |
74 |
|
75 |
No one is arguing against that. All this thread is about is making |
76 |
systemd a first-class citizen, like OpenRC/Sysvinit, so it will be as |
77 |
smooth as possible for someone who wants to switch between the two. |
78 |
|
79 |
> But I'm sure someone will declaim about how systemd doesn't force anything on |
80 |
> anyone (leveraging udev builds against your explicit word, doesn't count, nor do |
81 |
> any of the other changes like requiring an initramfs where none was needed before: |
82 |
> those are just things you should do because we tell you to) and Lennartware |
83 |
> hasn't already forced major changes and upgrade pain, for no tangible benefit to |
84 |
> the desktop-users it was purportedly aimed at. |
85 |
|
86 |
Systemd has nothing to do with requiring an initramfs, so please |
87 |
de-couple those issues. Yes, the systemd devs are the ones who wrote up |
88 |
the issues around why an initramfs should be used if /usr is separate, |
89 |
but systemd itself doesn't care. |
90 |
|
91 |
William |