Steven Chamberlain <ste...@pyro.eu.org> writes: > Sorry, I got completely the opposite impression from this tonight:
> On 29/01/14 17:41, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> Because it needs logind. >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00360.html > So, even having an adequate logind substitute, GNOME is expected to be > considerably impaired without systemd? Josselin can correct me if I've misunderstood him, but I believe his opinion is that getting logind working without systemd for systemd versions after 205 will be far harder than Steve thinks it is and will not be viable for jessie. This is, specifically, because the current Ubuntu approach for separating logind from systemd breaks with versions of systemd after 205 due to the implications of cgroup integration, and we obviously don't want to ship jessie with systemd 204 when upstream is already at a much newer version and will be even farther along by the time jessie ships. I don't think there is any disagrement over the scope of the dependency (namely, on logind plus some of the other D-Bus services and daemons that aren't as large of a porting issue). Rather, the question is whether it is actually viable to separate those services from systemd as init and port logind to non-Linux, whether that work will be done in time for jessie, and who is going to do it. In other words, the portability issue is really about logind (plus some other, more minor work), not about systemd, but the degree to which logind forces systemd as init is disputed, and as yet no one has done the concrete work to establish which technical opinion is correct with systemd and logind >205. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d2ja1ic9....@windlord.stanford.edu
