1 |
On 02/19/2014 09:06 AM, Gevisz wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:04:14 -0600 |
3 |
> Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 02/18/2014 12:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
6 |
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko |
7 |
>>> <bircoph@×××××.com> wrote: |
8 |
>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
9 |
>>>>>> Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I |
10 |
>>>>>> ask to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate |
11 |
>>>>>> systemd profile for those willing to use it. |
12 |
>>>>> Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd profile, you |
13 |
>>>>> need to use systemd. |
14 |
>>>> Or to create a non-systemd profile :) |
15 |
>>> That's the best response I've read in, like, many years. That's |
16 |
>>> perfect; I'm 100% behind it. I even volunteer to help (with testing) |
17 |
>>> to anyone going for this. |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> You guys create a systemd-sucks-we-dont-want-it profile, and I |
20 |
>>> promise to give you guys a hand. |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>>> Make a profile that "frees" users from using systemd, and I think |
23 |
>>> even several Gentoo developers will get behind that. |
24 |
>>> |
25 |
>>> Now we are talking; this has been my whole point the whole time. |
26 |
>>> Everybody that don't want to use systemd; help this idea, and if |
27 |
>>> there are enough of you, you'll pulled through. |
28 |
>>> |
29 |
>>> Regards. |
30 |
>>> |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> For all this talk about technical details, |
34 |
>> nobody seems to notice the marketing |
35 |
> A few people including myself have noted it earlier. |
36 |
> |
37 |
>> that's going on and frankly it disgusts me. |
38 |
> And me too. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> |
41 |
I have to confess that it does feel very evangelistic the approach from |
42 |
folks pushing systemd. perhaps it is just because for some it has been |
43 |
four years of looking at new ways of doing things, whilst others are |
44 |
just realising now how different it is. |
45 |
I saw an interesting blog post [1] that basically tried to convince |
46 |
directly gentoo devs. |
47 |
it was interesting because of this comment: |
48 |
|
49 |
<snip> |
50 |
" |
51 |
*Simon* |
52 |
September 26, 2013 at 2:58 am |
53 |
<https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-756> |
54 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
Yes, I think you’re dead on, there. It’s not that Gnome depends on |
57 |
systemd – but it’s increasingly dependent on features that are only |
58 |
provided by systemd. The example of OpenRC not behaving according to |
59 |
GDM’s assumptions is a perfect illustration of that. It’s dependent not |
60 |
on systemd, but on something that for practical purposes is |
61 |
indistinguishable from systemd |
62 |
" |
63 |
</snip> |
64 |
|
65 |
the difficulty is that without knowing what features are required but |
66 |
assumed to be there it becomes very difficult to build something the has |
67 |
the API that logind or others might be requiring. an update of gnome |
68 |
might require a new feature that is hot off the presses, and until it |
69 |
breaks an openrc-logind system no one is aware of that requirement. the |
70 |
API does seem to be online [2], albeit updated 30days ago; i can't |
71 |
comment if this is up to date enough or not. |
72 |
|
73 |
I think the argument on the blog page is a bit disingenuous too - |
74 |
essentially implying that if you want gnome then you must have logind, |
75 |
and if you want logind you must supply the features supplied by systemd: |
76 |
but to get a list of the features required is _your_ problem: go through |
77 |
the gnome source code to find out. |
78 |
these kinds of things are what folks are taking umbrage against. |
79 |
|
80 |
I'm also a little confused over the socket matrix feature. I think it's |
81 |
very clever to be negotiating and buffering socket and mounts to |
82 |
services that need them, but I haven't seen a good technical argument as |
83 |
to why this is required. From my perspective i see it as xinet.d for |
84 |
unix sockets and well, is anyone using xinet.d on a production server? |
85 |
Hopefuly someone can enlighten me? also what happens if the socket |
86 |
arbitrator dies ? |
87 |
|
88 |
not trying to troll here, just my main point is that the communication |
89 |
between systemd supporters seems to be more of an issue than the |
90 |
possibility of change. |
91 |
|
92 |
thanks guys |
93 |
|
94 |
[1] |
95 |
https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-logindsystemd-thoughts/ |
96 |
|
97 |
[2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind/ |