Re: systemd as external dependency

[Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse <jasper openbsd org>]

>On 18 May 2011 14:49, Josselin Mouette <joss debian org> wrote:
>> I don\u2019t have anything against requiring systemd, since it is definitely
>> the best init system out there currently, but the Linux dependency is an
>> absolute no-no for us. Having optional Linux-only functionalities is OK;
>> requiring Linux is not.
>
>I do have to wonder how many people are actually using GNOME on Debian
>on BSD, or even (ahah) Hurd...
>
>Ross
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Well, I can speak for OpenBSD when I say there are hundreds, if not thousands
of users of GNOME on OpenBSD. There are probably an equal or larger amount of
people using GNOME on the other platforms, like Solaris, the other BSD's, etc.

>> systemd itself has very minimal external dependencies. You need Linux,
>> udev, D-Bus, and that's it. (there are a couple of additional optional
>> deps however).
You have got to be kidding right? Yes, apart from forcing a complete operating
system/kernel as dependency, almost zero deps...way to go! (Yes, I'm rather
cynical, if not sad..)

> I think the time has come for GNOME to embrace Linux a bit more boldly.
And let the others choke? I mean seriously, embracing Linux more would mean
more Linux-specific backends to use, and caring less about the others "they
should just catch up"..

I think I can say that I speak for the whole BSD community, GNOME users
and non-GNOME users, when I say that such steps as enforcing Linux-only
dependencies even more is a clear sign GNOME does not care about portability
to any OS other than Linux...and that this is very sad sign to everyone else.

Even right now it's hard for us to keep up with new things like, various *kits,
udev, udisks and the like. Most of these technologies require changes in the
kernel, which is assumed "to be there already, since you run Linux". Don't get
me wrong, new technologies exploring new parts are cool and nice, but need
carefull thinking when "forced" as a dependency. Both portability and security-wise.

I think upower would be a good example of how things were done right. It's got
clearly separated backends where support for various kernels can be added (and
not the other way around where support for upower has to be added to the kernel!).

It's like a race where the track keeps changing while we're driving, which isn't bad per
se. But it gets very hard when it's decided to use race cars instead of
bikes.. I hope my (and of everyone who really cares about portability) concern
is clear and others step up to express theirs too.

-- 
Cheers,
Jasper

"Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them."