Re: systemd as external dependency

[Brian Cameron <brian cameron oracle com>]

Paul:

> Sorry for top-posting, but I'm going to recommend if anyone wants to
> talk about GNOME OS or platform changes to start a new thread.  While
> related, this is a different issue than the systemd proposal as an
> external dependency.

Agreed.  Since we are planning to discuss this anyway at the next
GNOME Foundation IRC meeting, could we focus on putting together an
agenda perhaps, on a different thread?

This systemd proposal does raise questions about how GDM should support
ConsoleKit versus systemd interfaces, but this is also a very separate
issue that is already being discussed in other threads on gdm-list and
the consolekit list.

I think one reason for all the noise is that the original proposal is
not fully specified.  There are significant changes to many diverse
modules listed as bullet items, the impact on ConsoleKit seems fuzzy,
and is concluded with:

  And I expect a couple of more interfacing points, however things get
  more and more into vaporware areas with those.

Overall, it seems sensible for GNOME to support systemd and I trust the
module maintainers to make the right decisions about how to support the
communities needs, including adding systemd support in a sensible way.

Where there are issues, lets discuss them, but in a more focused
manner.  If there is controversy in some areas, then perhaps we can
make progress by "blessing" those aspects of systemd integration that
are non-controversial and non-fuzzy first?

Brian


> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Michael Terry<mike mterry name>  wrote:
> > On 19 May 2011 10:32, Bastien Nocera<hadess hadess net>  wrote:
> > > > So what are the criteria for deciding which platforms to drop from
> > > > GNOME's scope?
> > > >
> > > > This thread is making it sound like the release team is OK with
> > > > criteria like "whichever platforms systemd doesn't run on," which
> > > > would certainly seem to put Ubuntu next in line for the axe.
> > >
> > > I think you need to look at the thread again. That was never mentioned,
> > > and we even mentioned ways for distributions that don't use systemd as
> > > the init system to ship the D-Bus mechanisms.
> >
> > True.  I guess I'm really just interested in an official answer to
> > "What are the criteria for deciding which platforms are within GNOME's
> > scope?"
> >
> > That's obviously an iffy thing when talking about new modules, because
> > sometimes innovation happens in one place and other platforms get
> > forced to play catchup, which isn't strictly ruling out support.
> > Though some things you know can be ported easily, others you know
> > can't be.
> >
> > Without some formal guidance here, I worry about a slippery slope.
> > And it sounds like the GNOME OS concept changed some minds about what
> > that guidance should be.
> >
> > Olav mentioned the Linux-only issue being on the agenda for the next
> > Foundation meeting.
> >
> > -mt
> > _______________________________________________
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list