* Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> [131024 05:39]: > ]] Steve Langasek > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:21:25AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > > 2013/10/24 Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org>: > > > > [...] > > > >> If Gnome depends on gnome-settings-daemon, which now depends on > > > >> systemd, > > > >> this might be a worrying trend, as non-Linux kernels don't support > > > >> systemd. > > > > > > Well, that's one more reason the init system and the dbus services > > > > should be > > > > separated out in the packaging. > > > Some of the services consume functions and features provided by > > > systemd (the init system). > > > > Which is exactly the kind of embrace-and-extend that Debian should not > > tolerate having foisted on them in the default desktop by an upstream > > pushing an agenda. > > I'm arguing for that systemd is a complete package. You can't just take > one part of it and expect it to work, at least not without throwing > engineering time at it as well.
The issue is not whether or not systemd is a complete package, but that the (current) Debian default desktop environment Depends on systemd. If systemd were already established as the _sole_ currently accepted init system, there might be a reasonable argument for this. However, currently, systemd is *very* controversial, and it is extremely unclear that it will become the default Debian init system. The default Debian DE should not require it. I believe that systemd/GNOME upstream is intentionally coupling the two in order to force adoption of systemd. There are obviously others who do not believe this. If it is true, however, I would consider it sufficient justification to both change Debian's default DE and eliminate systemd as a candidate for the default init system, regardless of any technical merits. ...Marvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131024134948.gk8...@basil.wdw
