Re: systemd as external dependency

[Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com>]

Sorry for the double post.

When I wrote my last post, it was not clear to me that systemd is not
and won't be portable.  If this is true, then that's probably okay for
Oracle too, as long as GNOME can be made smart enough to just disable
those aspects of the desktop that require it when systemd is not
present.

I am sure that we at Oracle can figure out ways to bolt on the support
we need for our users using other interfaces.

When I write my emails, I try to be even minded and inviting as I think
befits a free software community.  But I sometimes wonder why I bother
considering some of the other posts I read.

Brian


On 05/18/11 12:08 PM, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Yes, it might cost us a bit to be open and friendly like this -- and to
> > be honest, I'm not convinced the cost is that high for GNOME code, while
> > it certainly is for systemd -- but our community is not just about
> > purely technical matters. We also care about being open and friendly.
> > Or at least, we should.
>
> I think Lennart made the point that systemd is not portable and won't be
> ported. He also made the point that that doesn't mean other OS could
> share the same interfaces as systemd while providing a completely
> different backend and he also made clear that the parts GNOME will
> likely depend on apart from gdm will be buildable on any OS while not
> providing much use.
>
> I really don't think we can make a useful control-center that supports
> all kind of operating systems. People that care about configuring OS
> parts on non-linux systems should probably write their own
> control-center.
>
> Regards,
> Johannes
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list