| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:07:12 +0400, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> > Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd profile, you need to |
| 5 |
>> > use systemd. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Or to create a non-systemd profile :) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> We already have many of those, because systemd is not the default. Part |
| 10 |
> of making it the default, if that decision is ever taken, would be to |
| 11 |
> modify the current profiles to support systemd, at which point the old |
| 12 |
> versions would become the non-systemd profiles. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Yes, it does take systemd users/devs to create a systemd profile, but |
| 15 |
> they are the one that will want to use it anyway. The rest already have |
| 16 |
> what they want. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This is the way things have moved with the GNOME and KDE profiles, expect |
| 19 |
> others to follow suit. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
After seeing Andreas K. Huettel response in the other thread[1], I |
| 22 |
think it's fine even with a systemd profile. It just sets the systemd |
| 23 |
USE flags, mask genkernel (and dracut is so much better, IMO), mask |
| 24 |
some USE flags (static-flags for udev, cryptsetup, and lvm2; static |
| 25 |
for dmraid; and consolekit in general). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's really simple; putting that on a profile or doing by hand (which |
| 28 |
I do in my no-GNOME servers) is the same to me. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> I'm still uncomfortable with the pervasiveness of systemd, although Canek |
| 31 |
> does put forward persuasive arguments, through a mixture of expertise and |
| 32 |
> remaining calm. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Thanks Neil. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> So GNOME want to use logind, which may well be superior |
| 37 |
> to ConsoleKit, but why should that require a change of init system? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Well, the logind dbus interface is available for anyone to implement |
| 40 |
independently from systemd[2]. Ubuntu is trying to do that. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
It's just that the systemd developers saw that using the features of |
| 43 |
systemd, doing user session management was really easy, and they did. |
| 44 |
Those systemd features are not gratuitous; that's why Ubuntu is having |
| 45 |
trouble doing an independent replacement. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> A login daemon should be started by the init system, not be an integral |
| 48 |
> part of it. What happens when logind no longer fulfils developers needs, |
| 49 |
> as is the case with ConsoleKit now, how can it be replaced with an |
| 50 |
> improved service when it is so closely tied to the init system. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Well, if that happens then they will use the support for the improved |
| 53 |
service and logind will die like HAL or devfs. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
The thing is that logind exists now, it solves real problems, and |
| 56 |
people are using it because of that. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
If someone else writes something better, I'm sure they will use that |
| 59 |
instead. I don't see the point on worrying about what could happen |
| 60 |
when dozens of technologies have already been tried in Linux; some |
| 61 |
strive, and some die. Apparently, Upstart will die; it was a waste |
| 62 |
then when RedHat choose it for RHEL 6 (or 5, I don't know, never used |
| 63 |
it), or that Ubuntu used it? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
No, lessons were learned from it. And from devfs, and OSS, and HAL. |
| 66 |
That's how free software evolves. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
It only needs people willing and able to write and maintain new cool software. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Regards. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/272668 |
| 73 |
[2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind/ |
| 74 |
-- |
| 75 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 76 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 77 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives