Re: systemd as external dependency

[Lennart Poettering <mztabzr 0pointer de>]

On Thu, 19.05.11 13:13, Maciej Piechotka (uzytkownik2 gmail com) wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:51 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 21:50 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > 
> > > Which is why I've asked Lennart to add a flag to systemd's configure to
> > > install only the little servicey bits, for Linux distros, and the docs
> > > would serve as basis for implementation of other OSes.
> > 
> > That's fine.  I still think other distros/systems may be feel it to be a
> > little onerous to have to download a "big system-level package" (even if
> > it's just perception) to install random services like that.
> > 
> > (Maybe a "system-services" tarball, if you really don't like the name of
> > AdminKit?) :)
> > 
> >   Federico
> 
> +1 for AdminKit.
> 
> I don't think all distros switch for systemd in nearer future. Correct
> me if I'm wrong but they seems to be perfectly suited and superior for
> desktop enviroment but lack the fine-tuning servers admin requires (I
> heard complains that in some situations Gentoo scripts, which are
> dependencies, are wrong as they do not control the implied
> correspondence between  some servers in some setup). 

Yes, you are wrong. With systemd we actually try to cover the full
bandwith from embedded to mobile to desktop to servers. 

But why does this even matter for GNOME?

(also, all big distributions but one have announced their plans to
switch to systemd by now)

> In such way (i.e. AdminKit):
> 
>  - We/you[1] allow to replace systemd if it will be out-of-date (say in
> 30 years ;) )

Well, the abstraction layers tend to be swapped out more often then
backends. Just think about the Phonon story.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.