On 5 January 2014 01:46, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> writes: > >> Imho that's a gross overstatement. Over more than a year, an Ubuntu >> GNOME team was established and became official ubuntu flavour with so >> goal and purpose of shipping GNOME3 in it's full glory. If distro watch >> is any indication they are fast growing ubuntu flavour, outpacing the >> more established ones like e.g. Xubuntu. The demand for such flavour is >> growing, with highly positive reviews from critics and general >> public. There is a group of volunteers who contribute to making it >> work. I've personally used it, and it's quite wonderful and capable >> desktop environment. I think there is some degree of heresy to claim >> that GNOME3 is only supported with systemd-init pid1. That was the case >> intermittently, until majority of pid1 checks were replaced by more >> correct ones. > > Insofar as this is evidence that it's possible to make GNOME work with > option 2 (run logind without systemd), this is certainly valid > information, but I think this is information that we already have. As I > said in my original writeup, I believe the main challenge with option 2 > for jessie is not in figuring out *how* to do the work, but in identifying > *who* is going to do the work. (Beyond jessie, this will require ongoing > resources to maintain if it's not purely a transitional issue, but that's > a somewhat separate discussion.) And I'll note that Sjoerd said exactly > the same thing. > > Saying that it's easy is fine, particularly if you have details as to why > it's easy. What we're not going to do is say that therefore the existing > GNOME maintainers in Debian must do it. That is not how we work as a > project, and that is not how we're going to work as a project. If they > don't want to do the work, no one is going to force them to do it. > > Please instead note Steve's comments on maintaining logind as a separate > package, which is the productive way forward and is a way to get to the > second solution in my original message. Volunteering to do the work and > finding a way to do it in a minimally intrusive fashion is the way to show > that it's straightforward. >
I see thanks. I guess the only relevant addition, is that there is a pool of self-selected developers that are working on the similar type of integration issues: GNOME3 with logind without systemd-init. The Ubuntu GNOME team (packaging team is 18 people at the moment, there are more in users/qa/documentation teams ~250+ people) https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-gnome-packaging >> Even if that was the case, why should one Desktop Environment dictate >> for all Debian users what the pid1 should be? We are debating this >> decision not only on behalf of Debian developers, maintainers of GNOME, >> but ultimately on behalf of all our users. Which significantly includes >> !gnome3 and/or headless deployments. > > I think you have gotten confused as to which part of this thread that > you're participating in (which is understandable, given that it's a > giant). > > This discussion was prompted by my question to Sjoerd about what the > impact to GNOME would be for supporting sysvinit in jessie, and for > supporting a configuration without logind in jessie. That's information > that we need to have in the Technical Committee in order to decide what > options are reasonable to include in a discussion. Sjoerd was responding > to that question in his role as a current Debian GNOME maintainer based on > his experience with the packaging and with the current GNOME code > requirements. > > In other words, this discussion is specifically about GNOME because I > *asked* for it to be specifically about GNOME, because we have some reason > to believe it might be particularly heavily impacted. > > If you have a separate analysis, I also very much appreciate your comments > and analysis. But getting upset at him for providing his opinion is > directly counterproductive and just makes it harder for the Technical > Committee to do its work. Now it's less likely that someone else with > relevant technical knowledge will be willing to volunteer it in public, > for fear of having someone else jump on them. > I think I am confused about the giant threads, their chapters, sub-threads, sections, and individual emails. Sorry about that. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canbhlujafgpenvow4xe5cfep++rzgkhq70+brvvjgorhbyt...@mail.gmail.com
