On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: > On 2014-02-18 1:14 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:22:23 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yet again, I respect ones right to use whatever one wants, but I ask >>>>> to respect mine as well. That's why I propose a separate systemd >>>>> profile for those willing to use it. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then write. Just be aware that to write a systemd profile, you need to >>>> use systemd. >>> >>> >>> Or to create a non-systemd profile :) >> >> >> That's the best response I've read in, like, many years. That's >> perfect; I'm 100% behind it. I even volunteer to help (with testing) >> to anyone going for this. > > > Canek, > > You've referred many times to other programs that *require* systemd.
I meant in the Gentoo context (more below). And programs depend on *features* provided by systemd, not PID 1. I don't think any program will ever require a certain PID 1, and I would call that a bug. > I'm curious as to the extent of these programs, and to what extent they > *truly* require systemd. I don't understand what you mean by "the extent of these programs". As "to what extent they *truly* require systemd", the don't require systemd the package, they require some of the features provided by it. In particular, logind it's the one being used by GNOME (and Xfce and KDE soon, optionally, as in GNOME). > I can't for the life of me think of any reason that server daemons like > postfix, dovecot, apache, etc would or could ever *require* systemd. Neither of those packages would ever require systemd (nor any init system). If they do, I would call that a bug. All of those programs can use features provided by systemd (like socket activation, using the more advances features of the journal, etc.), but they can be made optional. > I couldn't care less about gnome (don't use it, never used it, don't wanna > use it), but what others are there? Well, KDE is talking about doing basically the same as GNOME and using logind. ConsoleKit will be still supported, as is (technically) in GNOME, and I just read that CK is actually being maintained. I don't know if it's getting new features, though, and logind is. > Also, for those that do require it, what feature of systemd (that doesn't > have an alternative available) is it that the program uses? Again, basically logind. And there *is* ConsoleKit available as an alternative. But basically all the GNOME developers are using systemd, so the CK support is getting bitrotten. That's why the Gentoo GNOME team decided to depend on systemd, although the requirement is really logind. If *someone* creates a logind compatible replacement (it uses a simple dbus API[1]), then even the GNOME suit in Gentoo could drop the requirement for systemd. Ubuntu has been working on something like this, and Mark Shuttleworth said that they will continue to work on it, even with Ubuntu choosing systemd[2], so if/when that's available, there will be no program that *requires* systemd, AFAIK. (Well, gnome-logs depends on the journal, but it's a GUI for a systemd specific feature). Like I've been saying; no one is forcing nothing on no one. But someone has to write/support/maintain the alternative. Regards. [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/logind/ [2] http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
