Re: systemd as external dependency
- From: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
- To: Michael Terry <mike mterry name>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: systemd as external dependency
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 01:20:02 +0100
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 13:09 -0400, Michael Terry wrote:
> On 19 May 2011 11:17, Jason D. Clinton <me jasonclinton com> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:02, Michael Terry <mike mterry name> wrote:
> >> 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?"
> > Those for which people whom want them to work show up and do the
> > integration work needed, as it's always been. I don't see anything in
> > this thread that indicates that we're changing this position, at all.
> Come, there's more nuance than that.
> Say I proposed an awesome app store Feature for GNOME, but it happened
> to require some new package format I'd invented, I gather GNOME
> wouldn't just assume that all platforms should switch to my new
You'd have to show beyond doubt that this can't be done in a way that
keeps compatibility, such as through using PackageKit and extending the
various packaging formats.
> There must be some maximum threshold of work that is forced
> upon platforms in the form of "keeping up with GNOME".
> I'm curious where the release team thinks that threshold lies. And
> presumably it considers user base and/or developer base in how much
> work it is asking others to do? i.e. requiring some HURD feature and
> asking Linux devs to adapt would probably be a harder sell than the
If the HURD feature was an awesome idea, I'm sure we'd find enough
manpower to get it implemented on Linux as well.
I don't really see the point of asking such hypothetical questions.
Common sense would certainly prevail if those cases actually came up.
] [Thread Prev