Re: hard systemd dependency?

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ryan Lortie <desrt desrt ca> wrote:

> Anyway... if we are really entering into a strong systemd-only world (and
> not merely communication with standard systemd D-Bus interfaces) then I'd
> prefer if we did that with an explicit declaration by the release team and
> not a commit with a misleading log message made by a single maintainer.

We are not, at least in 3.8. The current g-s-d build failure is temporary.

>From the release team meeting notes:

 → ack previous decisions:
   - No hard compile time dep on systemd for "basic functionality"
   - example of basic functionality: active session tracking
   - example of non-basic functionality: power management

The bugs where we are sorting this out for g-s-d are

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]