| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Ok, before I go and open up a bug requesting this... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I know there have to be a lot of people on this list who can answer this |
| 7 |
> question... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Is making the use of systemd or not based on a selected Profile, as opposed |
| 10 |
> to manually trying to do it via USE flags etc, a practical request, or not? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Meaning: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1. is it doable, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Of course it is. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> 2. how hard (on a scale of 1/easy to 10/hard to impossible) would it |
| 19 |
> be to do this, and |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Well, doing it I think it's easy. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> 3. regardless of the difficulty in achieving it, how hard would it be |
| 24 |
> (on a scale of 1 (easy) to 10 (hard to impossible)) to maintain in |
| 25 |
> the long run? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That's the pickle, isn't? Forget about how "hard" it is. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The problem, as I see it, is that this systemd profile is being pushed |
| 30 |
by the people that *don't* want to use systemd, because they want it |
| 31 |
restricted to a separated profile so their machines are not "tainted" |
| 32 |
by systemd. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If it was the other way around (systemd users wanting a systemd |
| 35 |
profile), there would be no problem, since they would happily do the |
| 36 |
job. But as it is it makes no sense; if you want to maintain a systemd |
| 37 |
profile, you need to *use* systemd to do the testing and supporting. |
| 38 |
Are the people that don't want to use systemd, will use systemd to |
| 39 |
test and support a profile so they don't need to use systemd? Really? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
(And never mind that more and more packages in the stack will want to |
| 42 |
use systemd's features, and some of them probably will not work, or |
| 43 |
work with limited functionality, without said features. And a profile |
| 44 |
is not going to change that.) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
That being said, the GNOME team introduced a gnome/systemd profile |
| 47 |
(and later the KDE team did the same). I've never saw the point in |
| 48 |
doing that, but that's what they decided and is fine. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
If the Gentoo developers that use and prefer systemd decide to create |
| 51 |
a systemd profile, then it will (easily, I think) happen. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
But it's the systemd users the ones you should convince to do it; not |
| 54 |
anyone *not* using it or avoiding it. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> I'm hoping that even if the answer to #2 above is 7+, if the answer to #3 is |
| 57 |
> 'relatively easy' or better, then maybe it still stands a chance of getting |
| 58 |
> done. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
The possibility exists, sure. You can talk to Michał and the other |
| 61 |
members of the systemd project in Gentoo. If you convince them that it |
| 62 |
is a good idea (and good for systemd, obviously), they will do it. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
But anyone that wants to help this happen will need to use systemd to |
| 65 |
support a systemd profile. That's simple logic. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
> And incidentally, Canek, if I was a programmer, I'd be happy to volunteer to |
| 68 |
> take it on, but alas I'm just a lowly user... |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
I would, but I don't think is worth it. It's not an unreasonable idea, |
| 71 |
but I think it will make thinks muddy when someone chooses the "not |
| 72 |
systemd" profile, and they will discover that anyhow they need systemd |
| 73 |
to run a lot of things. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
And, I repeat, usually when someone pushes for an X profile, it's |
| 76 |
because they want to use X. In this case you are asking for an X |
| 77 |
profile so you don't need to even see X; it makes no sense, since the |
| 78 |
X profiles needs the people maintaining it to use X. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
Regards. |
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 83 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 84 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives