| 1 |
On 21/10/13 05:34, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 05:03:51PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> That's a bridge we will cross when there is a bridge to be crossed, but |
| 5 |
>> from top of my head: |
| 6 |
>> We will maintain a minimal patchset that reverts the offending code. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> As in, that's nothing to be worried about before it happens. |
| 9 |
> That's not always possible, e.g. GNOME 3.8. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Yes, but it was Gentoo Gnome Teams decision to keep packaging Gnome |
| 13 |
after they (I mean, GNOME upstream) introduced systemd hard dependency |
| 14 |
instead of switching to eg. MATE, or helping out with Xfce, etc, and |
| 15 |
sticking to the distribution default (OpenRC) |
| 16 |
And then it's yours (I mean, users) decision to keep on using Gnome |
| 17 |
despite of it |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As we were talking about core, like kernel and part of the userland boot |
| 20 |
process, I'm just trying to say that Gnome is not important part of the |
| 21 |
core system, it's just one of the desktops among others, despite of it's |
| 22 |
past (and current) popularity |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Now I have to admit I'm biased, I used to use GNOME 2.x in past but I've |
| 25 |
been with Xfce for years now, so I can only imagine what hardcore GNOME |
| 26 |
users think of all this, |
| 27 |
if the same thing happened to Xfce, I'd very very much pissed off -- to |
| 28 |
a point I'd rip out whole systemd support out of the code and package it |
| 29 |
with limited functionality |
| 30 |
rather than introducing systemd harddep |
Archives