On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 01:58:41AM +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > waltdnes wrote:
> > >>   Question... when Sun made OpenOffice depend on Java (also a Sun
> > >> product) did Gentoo developers run around suggesting that Java be made a
> > >> part of the core Gentoo base system?  I don't think so.  If a user wants
> > >> to run GNOME badly enough, he'll switch to systemd.  I don't see why the
> > >> rest of us (i.e. non-users of GNOME) should have to follow along and
> > >> reconfigure our systems.  This is a case of the tail wagging the dog.
> > >  
> > >  I don't interpret what he is saying that way. I think what he is
> > >  talking about is that we are trying to get teams to support non-systemd
> > >  setups when upstreams do not, like with gnome.
> > > 
> > >  Gnome now has a hard dependency on systemd (for gnome newer than 3.8).
> > >  Some folks want to use gnome without systemd and are putting that under
> > >  the gentoo is about choice banner and want us to support them.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone say that in this entire discussion, but I might have
> missed something. "If a user wants to run GNOME, he [can] switch to systemd"
> is clearly not saying that, so we're left with an enigmatic "some" who haven't
> posted to this thread, afaics.
 
 The point I'm trying to make here is that for gnome >=3.8, upstream
 gnome does not support running gnome without systemd afaik.

> It's clear to me that users have been forced through lots of changes over the
> last 5 years, even where we just want to carry on using our machines the way
> we always have. Isn't that what convenience layers are about? So Walter's
> point stands.

No it doesn't, because Gentoo Linux isn't  requiring you to run systemd.
 
> > >> Fabio Erculiani wrote
> > >>> So what do we want to do then? Isolate from the rest of the world?
> > >>> (It's not a sarcastic question). I hope that everybody does their
> > >>> own reality check.
> 
> Gnome can depend on w/e upstream require. How is that the whole world?
> It's not even the whole Linux ecosystem, and I can't see Qt giving up cross-
> platform independence, just to work with systemd. That was never going to
> happen, so it was never going to happen in KDE either, however enthused a
> few of its volunteers were, since KDE is a showcase for Qt.
> 
> You're right: reality-checks are clearly needed all over the place.
> 
> > >>   You are effectively calling not-using-GNOME isolationist.  Let's just
> > >> say I disagree with you on that.  BTW, see my sig.
> 
> It's clear to me that systemd devs are the real isolationists: everyone
> else has to do everything their way, or they'll throw their toys out of the
> pram, including the ones they stole. The real trouble with "N+1 True Way" is
> the contortions it forces them through, as they explain why "this time" they've
> got it right, and how badly they got it wrong last time.
> 
> That wouldn't be an issue-- everyone makes mistakes-- if they hadn't rubbished
> everyone else who pointed out issues along the way. After a few years of that,
> sorry but enough already.
> 
> Matthew Thode wrote:
> > If upstream gnome has that dep on systemd then I kinda think we should
> > too (technical decision, not one I like personally)
> 
> I think we should too: all anyone has said is "Gnome is not Linux". Presenting
> its choices as representative of every DE and upstream project is simply
> misleading.
 
 I haven't done that, and I don't know of anyone else who has.

> Claiming that making it easier to use systemd is in everyone's interests is
> clearly untrue as well, since many of us our interests are caught up with a
> modular system we can build and configure how we require. That's why we came to
> Gentoo, and why we stay.
 
 No one is arguing against that. All this thread is about is making
 systemd a first-class citizen, like OpenRC/Sysvinit, so it will be as
 smooth as possible for someone who wants to switch between the two.

> But I'm sure someone will declaim about how systemd doesn't force anything on
> anyone (leveraging udev builds against your explicit word, doesn't count, nor do
> any of the other changes like requiring an initramfs where none was needed before:
> those are just things you should do because we tell you to) and Lennartware
> hasn't already forced major changes and upgrade pain, for no tangible benefit to
> the desktop-users it was purportedly aimed at.

Systemd has nothing to do with requiring an initramfs, so please
de-couple those issues. Yes, the systemd devs are the ones who wrote up
the issues around why an initramfs should be used if /usr is separate,
but systemd itself doesn't care.

William