| 1 |
On 19/08/2013 19:03, Yohan Pereira wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 19/08/13 at 09:36pm, William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So why not a profile so those guys who want to play can get a |
| 4 |
>> configuration that better suits them? - and vice versa if the whole |
| 5 |
>> systemd push dies and Redhat drops it as I doubt anyone else big enough |
| 6 |
>> will pick it up (they have a foot in both camps at the moment). Smaller |
| 7 |
>> distros that jump entirely systemd will be in trouble until they move back. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not a systemd supporter in any way but I don't think making a profile |
| 10 |
> makes sense because we already have profiles for kde, gnome, desktop |
| 11 |
> etc. Users will probably want to use systemd in-conjunction with any one |
| 12 |
> of those, so we would need to have kde-systemd, gnome-systemd .. which |
| 13 |
> is absurd. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> At least I don't see a sane way to achieve it from my |
| 16 |
> rudimentary understanding of profiles. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The only way it could be done is to have additive profiles, i.e. a |
| 20 |
collection of possible profiles such as gnome, kde, openrc, systemd - |
| 21 |
pick all that apply. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This very rapidly cascades into a total nightmare when one profile say |
| 24 |
to include thing X and another says to exclude thing X. There's no sane |
| 25 |
default handling for that, one has to install local policy that applies |
| 26 |
a precedence rule. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
USE=systemd is far better (ignoring for the moment the difficulties in |
| 29 |
actually switching the service manager over) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives