4 ms·

from same article: "Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any processes it started. This is what systemd does, but OpenRC didn’t su

by gnufied 12y ago

from same article: "Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any processes it started. This is what systemd does, but OpenRC didn’t support that. Which means that GDM under OpenRC would leave lingering processes around, making it impossible to restart/shutdown GDM properly. The Gentoo GNOME packagers had to add this ability to OpenRC themselves. Then there were various other small little bugs, details which I already forgot and cannot be bothered to read the IRC logs. " So apparently there are bugs when using OpenRC with Gnome. That is not to say, Gnome requires systemd (I did not make that claim).

simoncion 12y ago
Unless you're ovitters, I never claimed that you claimed that Gnome requires systemd. You did -however- say that "...when Gentoo developers tried integrating OpenRC they ran into too many bugs." Your statement is not true. Stable Gentoo had its default init system switched to OpenRC in mid 2011. OpenRC has been great for Gentoo. "Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any processes it started." AFAIK, the only Linux init system that behaves in this way is systemd. Expecting this behavior means that one expects one's init system to behave like systemd. It is disingenuous to claim that one's software doesn't require the use of systemd when it relies on process management -and other- behavior that can only be found in systemd. To make an analogy: I write software that makes extensive use of cgroups. If I said: "My software doesn't require Linux. We could run on *BSD if they'd just implement cgroups, and Windows if they'd just implement POSIX and cgroups. It's a pity that they don't make this effort, and I don't have the bandwidth to help them out, but my software doesn't require you to use Linux to run it." you would likely accuse me of sophistry; and with good reason!
- digi_owl 12y ago
  I find myself reminded of a poster at a school toilet: "your mother does not work here, clean up after yourself".
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    When unable to provide a cogent response, a parable will be a sufficient substitute.
  - simoncion 12y ago
    I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're trying to say. Would you elaborate?
    - digi_owl 12y ago
      Gnome apparently assumes someone else is supposed to clean up after them, and so leave processes behind. In essence, systemd has becomes Gnome's mother...
      - simoncion 12y ago
        As anyone who's used a language at least as modern as C will tell you, it's awfully nice when a runtime system will help you clean up when your task terminates. My beef with the article that the GGP links to is not that GDM now requires such a system (strategic laziness is a virtue!), but that the author refuses to admit that 1) There currently exists only one such runtime system that provides the behavior that GDM relies on. 2) There is absolutely no guarantee that the GDM folks won't come to rely on more systemd implementation detail in the future. Indeed, given the way Gnome development seems to happen, it's almost a certainty that GDM will depend on more and more systemd implementation detail in an entirely ad-hoc manner as time goes on.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

by gnufied 12y ago

simoncion 12y ago

Unless you're ovitters, I never claimed that you claimed that Gnome requires systemd. You did -however- say that "...when Gentoo developers tried integrating OpenRC they ran into too many bugs." Your statement is not true. Stable Gentoo had its default init system switched to OpenRC in mid 2011. OpenRC has been great for Gentoo. "Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any processes it started." AFAIK, the only Linux init system that behaves in this way is systemd. Expecting this behavior means that one expects one's init system to behave like systemd. It is disingenuous to claim that one's software doesn't require the use of systemd when it relies on process management -and other- behavior that can only be found in systemd. To make an analogy: I write software that makes extensive use of cgroups. If I said: "My software doesn't require Linux. We could run on *BSD if they'd just implement cgroups, and Windows if they'd just implement POSIX and cgroups. It's a pity that they don't make this effort, and I don't have the bandwidth to help them out, but my software doesn't require you to use Linux to run it." you would likely accuse me of sophistry; and with good reason!

digi_owl 12y ago
I find myself reminded of a poster at a school toilet: "your mother does not work here, clean up after yourself".
- anonbanker 12y ago
  When unable to provide a cogent response, a parable will be a sufficient substitute.
- simoncion 12y ago
  I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're trying to say. Would you elaborate?
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    Gnome apparently assumes someone else is supposed to clean up after them, and so leave processes behind. In essence, systemd has becomes Gnome's mother...
    - simoncion 12y ago
      As anyone who's used a language at least as modern as C will tell you, it's awfully nice when a runtime system will help you clean up when your task terminates. My beef with the article that the GGP links to is not that GDM now requires such a system (strategic laziness is a virtue!), but that the author refuses to admit that 1) There currently exists only one such runtime system that provides the behavior that GDM relies on. 2) There is absolutely no guarantee that the GDM folks won't come to rely on more systemd implementation detail in the future. Indeed, given the way Gnome development seems to happen, it's almost a certainty that GDM will depend on more and more systemd implementation detail in an entirely ad-hoc manner as time goes on.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]