Hi, On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:29:10AM +0100, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> I think this is very ambiguous and my immediate interpretation is > probably not what the original proposer means. The two extreme > interpretations I see for "designed to work exclusively with systemd" are: > - my guess for the OP meaning: some piece of software that is directly > related to systemd, tries to enhance it and in the end should be part of it; > - my immediate interpretation: any piece of software where upstream > does not care for (or does not have the resources to support) non-systemd. Upstreams that design around systemd. With systemd, you can get a COM-style component system where software can request "whatever other software is there that implements this interface should be started because I want to talk to it." with some additional functionality like system services activating components in "the" user session (i.e. a notion of a system's current user) for things like Bluetooth that need an interactive pairing process and a per-user keyring. This is a different design paradigm that requires central middleware, so it's usually not a simple compile option that can be turned on or off. Simon
