FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-13-2012, 07:47 PM
Christopher Head
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:03:01 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some
> > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD
> > aside of OpenRC ?
>
> For Xfce it only means that xfce4-session will try to query
> credentials also from systemd, not ConsoleKit alone
>
> There are no plans of removing ConsoleKit support for Xfce wrt
> upstream anytime soon since Xfce is committed for long-term BSD
> support, and the Xfce development team includes developers, from eg.
> OpenBSD
>
> > 4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add deps
> > related to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops want to
> > depend on a specific Sysint....
>
> || ( sys-auth/consolekit sys-apps/systemd ) or something can be done
> if the package tries to query both via DBUS calls
> As in, something needs to tell PolicyKit (polkit) that you are a
> local user and thus grant access to eg. USB removable devices
>

What about those of us who are perfectly happy using neither one? I’ve
never had any of the Kits installed, and the recommendation has always
been to just put yourself in the “plugdev” group which has worked fine.
Is this going to continue to be possible, or is this going away?

Chris
 
Old 08-13-2012, 09:37 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:47:51 -0700
Christopher Head <headch@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:03:01 +0300
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > > 2. I saw on some lists that Gnome/Kde and Xfce plan to use some
> > > SystemD API, so does it means that we will need to install SystemD
> > > aside of OpenRC ?
> >
> > For Xfce it only means that xfce4-session will try to query
> > credentials also from systemd, not ConsoleKit alone
> >
> > There are no plans of removing ConsoleKit support for Xfce wrt
> > upstream anytime soon since Xfce is committed for long-term BSD
> > support, and the Xfce development team includes developers, from eg.
> > OpenBSD
> >
> > > 4. Finally, is there any reason why Gnome/Kde/Xfce wants to add
> > > deps related to SystemD ? I don't understand why these desktops
> > > want to depend on a specific Sysint....
> >
> > || ( sys-auth/consolekit sys-apps/systemd ) or something can be done
> > if the package tries to query both via DBUS calls
> > As in, something needs to tell PolicyKit (polkit) that you are a
> > local user and thus grant access to eg. USB removable devices
> >
>
> What about those of us who are perfectly happy using neither one? I’ve
> never had any of the Kits installed, and the recommendation has always
> been to just put yourself in the “plugdev” group which has worked
> fine. Is this going to continue to be possible, or is this going away?

I can't say whether at some point GNOME wouldn't try hard to force this
on us, but it will be still supported one way or another. There are
still people (like me) working on alternate solutions, and those people
will try hard to keep things working as they like them.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 08-14-2012, 03:24 AM
Greg KH
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Pelez Valds <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
> > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
>
> Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo
> (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that
> ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of
> this stuff is less of an issue.

That is not what I said, or mean at all.

Given that I'm a Gentoo developer, and have been for a very long time, I
find it very strange that you would think otherwise.

greg k-h
 
Old 08-14-2012, 10:31 AM
Rich Freeman
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Pelez Valds <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
>> > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
>>
>> Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo
>> (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that
>> ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of
>> this stuff is less of an issue.
>
> That is not what I said, or mean at all.
>
> Given that I'm a Gentoo developer, and have been for a very long time, I
> find it very strange that you would think otherwise.

I did clarify my post in a reply, linking to your post and of course
stating that you could clarify. Your words were: "I just don't
think it can be done well, sorry, which is why I strongly recommend
tightly-coupled distros for desktops for anyone (like Fedora or
openSUSE or Ubuntu), and Debian or Gentoo only for servers or embedded
systems where you know exactly what you are putting together, and why
you are doing it that way."

I'm not a big fan of putting words in mouths, so if I misread that
than I apologize. In any case, I can't really argue much with that
statement as-is, although I'd probably carve out an additional
exception for enthusiasts or those who otherwise like to tinker under
the hood.

If you want strong vertical integration, you probably will never get
as much of it with Gentoo as you might get with a tightly-coupled
distro.

Rich
 
Old 08-14-2012, 06:12 PM
Canek Pelez Valds
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:47:19PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Canek Pelez Valds <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I agree with Greg Kroah-Hartman: I actually like (and want) a
>>> > "vertically integrated, tightly coupled way of doing things".
>>>
>>> Well, if you completely agreed with him you wouldn't be running Gentoo
>>> (or Debian, or other general-purpose distros). He advocates that
>>> ordinary users should use more purpose-driven distros, where all of
>>> this stuff is less of an issue.
>>
>> That is not what I said, or mean at all.
>>
>> Given that I'm a Gentoo developer, and have been for a very long time, I
>> find it very strange that you would think otherwise.
>
> I did clarify my post in a reply, linking to your post and of course
> stating that you could clarify. Your words were: "I just don't
> think it can be done well, sorry, which is why I strongly recommend
> tightly-coupled distros for desktops for anyone (like Fedora or
> openSUSE or Ubuntu), and Debian or Gentoo only for servers or embedded
> systems where you know exactly what you are putting together, and why
> you are doing it that way."
>
> I'm not a big fan of putting words in mouths, so if I misread that
> than I apologize. In any case, I can't really argue much with that
> statement as-is, although I'd probably carve out an additional
> exception for enthusiasts or those who otherwise like to tinker under
> the hood.
>
> If you want strong vertical integration, you probably will never get
> as much of it with Gentoo as you might get with a tightly-coupled
> distro.

You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other
distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to
make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most
of Gentoo developers really believe that every single possible
combination of hardware, software, init systems, and even OS kernels
should be supported.

I myself believe that any Gentoo dev should support whatever the hell
s/he wants to; I'm just interested in that if some of us want vertical
integration, it should be easier to get. Right now every single Gentoo
install from the official tree has OpenRC installed, because is pulled
in by baselayout, and OpenRC also pulls sysvinit. And I'm not talking
about some text files (even if they are executables) in /etc/init.d;
I'm talking about executable binaries and libraries in every Gentoo
install, even if the user has systemd, and they don't use
OpenRC/sysvinit at all. Not to mention that they need to compile both
packages if they ever upgrade (which doesn't happen that much, I
agree).

Regards.
--
Canek Pelez Valds
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniera de la Computacin
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico
 
Old 08-14-2012, 07:14 PM
Peter Stuge
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

Canek Pelez Valds wrote:
> You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other
> distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to
> make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most
> of Gentoo developers really believe that every single possible
> combination of hardware, software, init systems, and even OS kernels
> should be supported.

And even if it isn't harder, the main point for *many* competent
users is that they have to do it themselves.

Many extremely skilled peers of mine simply do not want to.

They tried to do it, just not on Gentoo, and they have been burnt so
badly by whatever distribution they tried that they basically swear
off Linux completely for lack of time messing around, and just buy
fruit computers.

I have always appreciated the ability to customize, and I want to do
it. The framework for customization that is Gentoo easily surpasses
everything else that I have seen, and that's thanks to all the
developers.

But it means nothing for someone who wants to open a box, switch on
the power, and go online to $socialmediasite or $emailprovider.


//Peter
 
Old 08-14-2012, 07:18 PM
Luca Barbato
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On 08/14/2012 09:14 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> But it means nothing for someone who wants to open a box, switch on
> the power, and go online to $socialmediasite or $emailprovider.

Sabayon does a decent job for them.

lu
 
Old 08-15-2012, 10:27 AM
Rich Freeman
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Canek Pelez Valds <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can get as much vertical integration with Gentoo as with any other
> distro. The problem (and I think this is the point Greg is trying to
> make) is that it will be harder (not impossible, just harder) if most
> of Gentoo developers really believe that every single possible
> combination of hardware, software, init systems, and even OS kernels
> should be supported.

It isn't impossible for Gentoo to build a moon lander or for the
Foundation to buy the entire planet - just hard. However, in practice
things that require resources we don't have simply won't happen.

Right now having decent KDE and Gnome support with all the bells and
whistles that works fine on FreeBSD as well as Linux isn't that hard,
because this trend towards vertical integration is just getting
started. Running that on OSX under Prefix is already pretty painful
(not sure if anybody has actually pulled it off - I'm sure it is
possible).

It will likely get harder, which means in practice what we'll probably
have is a reasonable compromise which will never be quite as polished
in any one direction as it could be, unless the end user does the
polishing.

RE you concerns about OpenRC being in @system. Personally I'm a fan
of getting rid of @system entirely except as something used to build
install CDs or having some sets for convenience in building systems.
It only exists for a few reasons that I can think of:
1. Devs don't want to have ebuilds that capture dependencies on every
little thing. A few well-chosen virtuals like "shell utilities" or
whatever might help with this.
2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of
package.provided in profiles might address this.
3. We'd need many more virtuals to handle situations like FreeBSD
where people don't what GNU on their systems. Right now if they are
system packages they just define system appropriately and ebuilds
don't directly pull in the GNU stuff anyway.

I'm sure there could be others. Keep in mind that systemd is still
pretty new and largely out-of-the-blue so it will take time for Gentoo
to adjust to it. Right now OpenRC might install executables, but
nothing should be actually running them - this is just wasted
compilation time which isn't a bad interim state to be in. If
virtualizing udev is causing controversy just wait until somebody
actually makes a push to remove OpenRC from @system...

Rich
 
Old 08-15-2012, 10:58 AM
Michał Górny
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:27:41 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 1. Devs don't want to have ebuilds that capture dependencies on every
> little thing. A few well-chosen virtuals like "shell utilities" or
> whatever might help with this.

Just note that PMS specifies a few requirements about those utilities
as well. I'm not sure if we want ebuilds explicitly DEPEND-ing on
things which are required by PMS.

In any case, virtual/posix-system would be nice to have.

> 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
> of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of
> package.provided in profiles might address this.

We could also make virtuals not pull in anything on Prefix in those
cases.

> 3. We'd need many more virtuals to handle situations like FreeBSD
> where people don't what GNU on their systems. Right now if they are
> system packages they just define system appropriately and ebuilds
> don't directly pull in the GNU stuff anyway.

I doubt that's a problem. We've got a lot of virtuals and adding new
ones shouldn't be a problem. I'd dare say it's better to add more
virtuals than introducing USEflags to existing ones -- it requires less
work from users.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 08-15-2012, 11:07 AM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default Questions about SystemD and OpenRC

On 15-08-2012 12:58:32 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 2. Things like Prefix rely on the system not installing local copies
> > of libraries in the core system it needs to link to. Careful use of
> > package.provided in profiles might address this.

Huh? Not sure I understand this, but it suggests something which isn't
true for Prefix to me.

> We could also make virtuals not pull in anything on Prefix in those
> cases.

Things like virtual/os-headers already do so.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org