Re: Requiring systemd for the gnome-settings-daemon power plugin
- From: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
- To: Colin Walters <walters verbum org>
- Cc: release-team <release-team gnome org>, "desktop-devel-list gnome org" <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Requiring systemd for the gnome-settings-daemon power plugin
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:07:57 +0200
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 12:07 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 15:48 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > I would recommend that gnome-shell uses systemd to suspend, and I would
> > recommend gnome-shell, gnome-session and gdm also drop their ConsoleKit
> > session tracking code. At the end of the day, the decisions are not mine
> > to make, so if the costs of keeping those options are low enough for
> > you, then feel free to keep them.
> But in reality, the set of git repositories forms a whole. And if
> gnome-settings-daemon doesn't support !systemd, then the whole doesn't
> either. So if you decide to delete this code from g-s-d, it makes the
> work of anyone else completely pointless.
> Broadly speaking, I don't think it makes sense for this to be up to
> individual module maintainers as they please, because the result is
The result would be incoherent. Except that I cannot take decisions for
other module maintainers, for fear of being seeing as overbearing and
(paraphrasing) "thrusting changes upon GNOME which would then get
whitewashed as maintainers discretion".
> Now, this is obviously not a new debate. One option which I'd like to
> preserve at least is that !systemd platforms are able to build and run
> GNOME in "basic window management" mode. Basically the equivalent of
> thin client/remote X display.
It won't crash if logind isn't available, we'd just disable the power
> So we could say we don't support power management for example. In that
> case, you could support being compiled without systemd support (at
> present), and just do nothing if it doesn't exist. Or it could be
> runtime detection.
Given that there are no library dependencies, it would always be
run-time detection, as it was and as it will be. No change there.
] [Thread Prev