Re: Requiring systemd for the gnome-settings-daemon power plugin

[Antoine Jacoutot <ajacoutot gnome org>]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:28:45AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 09:36 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> 
> > I agree with you that we need to have a motive to change and that
> > costs should be weighed carefully. We can make the case.
> 
> Yes.  You've done some of that here.  As we discussed on IRC, stuff like
> having GNOME tightly integrated with the journal would be very
> compelling.
> 
> > What is unwise, in my opinion, is ifdef'ing or branching the user
> > experience to suit the code.
> 
> There is as you say below, a short term and a long term.  Short term,
> dealing with some ifdefs seems quite doable to me.
> 
> But for the medium term, we should gather a list of features that
> depend on systemd.  For each of those features, some of them can just
> not exist if GNOME isn't compiled with systemd.  Structured logging
> probably falls into this category.
> 
> Others, like systemd-as-gnome-session, would clearly be a huge amount of
> nontrivial duplication if we tried to support both.  It's a
> no-going-back type situation.
> 
> Really we're talking about 3 possible paths, in increasing order of
> dependence/benefit:
> 
> 1) No hard dep on systemd, maintain current CK bits to a greater or
>    lesser degree.
> 2) No hard dep on systemd, but delete CK bits.  
> 3) Hard dep on systemd.
> 
> You are talking about 3).  Bastien was trying to accomplish 2) (but the
> current g-s-d code actually has a hard dep), and what I was going
> for in the *short* term is to maintain the status quo of 1).
> 
> I'm not sure how much it makes sense though to spend a cycle or two
> doing 2) if what we're *really* going for is 3).

I fully agree with this last statement and it's the main reason I raised some concerns in my initial mail.

-- 
Antoine