4 ms·

One of your premises seems to be equal to your conclusion. So I still don't see, how this video has anything to do with it.

anonbanker 11y ago
This video is a sign of the systemd shims (workarounds) getting to the point where GNOME runs fully in OpenBSD. now, if they liked SystemD, why would they create shims, rather than reimplement it in OpenBSD?
- peveechi 11y ago
  This video is a sign that either the OpenBSD/Gnome-porters are sucessfully maintaining the old non-systemd codepaths (as e.g. this https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-January/msg00109.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-Janu... message from the guy who made the video indicates), or that they have implemented enough of the systemd-interfaces to get Gnome running. What exactly do you mean by "reimplement it in OpenBSD" and what would be the difference to the current approach you call "shims"?
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    all the non-systemd codepaths were explicitly removed in gnome 3.14. two revisions ago. As GNOME 3.14 is quite different in many incompatible ways with 3.16[1], the fact that they're making that old code work, and updating it to 3.16 is not exactly a trivial task. they haven't implemented any systemd interfaces. they have essentially redirected the systemd calls to proper utilities supported on OpenBSD (such as ntpd), which is defined as a "shim"; GNOME thinks systemd is there, but in reality, the apps that handled stuff before systemd are still handling everything while lying to GNOME. 1. https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome-3-14-and-beyond/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome...
    - peveechi 11y ago
      (Sorry for the long delay; new accounts are somewhat throttled.) The article you link to doesn't support your claims. It explicitly states that Gnome 3.14 (which, btw, is only one revision ago, since Gnome uses the old Linux kernel version scheme) would still support ConsoleKit (i.e. a non-systemd codepath). In fact, Gnome 3.16 still supports ConsoleKit, at least in gdm (see the configure-option here [1]). Can you point out commits where non-systemd support was removed in Gnome 3.14? And what exactly do you mean by "redirected the systemd calls"? Gnome calls certain methods on certain D-Bus objects; if there is a process on OpenBSD that receives these method calls and acts appropriately, why not call that implementing that particular interface? I don't want to diminish the amount of work that went into this port. I find it really great that someone is doing all that work. But I don't think that the picture you paint of this is entirely accurate. You assume that the OpenBSD-guys hate systemd. That might be the case (it probably is for a lot of them), but I don't think that this has anything to do with this video. If the video e.g. had shown that they removed any reference to systemd whatsoever from the Gnome code and inserted some sneering comments, I might agree with your conclusion. But it simply shows that they succeded in porting Gnome 3.16 to OpenBSD. How would this video have had to look, to persuade you of the opposite (i.e. that there were OpenBSD developers that love systemd)? 1. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0#n241 https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0...
      - anonbanker 11y ago
        a positive mention of systemd somewhere would be a good start. Hell, a positive mention of systemd anywhere on an openbsd package maintainer's site would be worth settling for. As for dbus objects, GNOME calls systemd's interfaces to dbus, not dbus directly[1]. Calling dbus, which is already fully supported in *BSD, would be far preferable, and we might not even be having this dicsussion if they did. here's another post with a tad more information on what GNOME needed in order to work on BSD (or even Slackware!)[1][2]. There was a lot of work in this release, and in no way am I attempting to diminish their work. I merely wished to make it clear that systemd was an obstacle they did not reimplement, but rather overcame with the use of shims. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9363060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9363060 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362050 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362054

anonbanker 11y ago

This video is a sign of the systemd shims (workarounds) getting to the point where GNOME runs fully in OpenBSD. now, if they liked SystemD, why would they create shims, rather than reimplement it in OpenBSD?

peveechi 11y ago
This video is a sign that either the OpenBSD/Gnome-porters are sucessfully maintaining the old non-systemd codepaths (as e.g. this https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-January/msg00109.html https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2015-Janu... message from the guy who made the video indicates), or that they have implemented enough of the systemd-interfaces to get Gnome running. What exactly do you mean by "reimplement it in OpenBSD" and what would be the difference to the current approach you call "shims"?
- anonbanker 11y ago
  all the non-systemd codepaths were explicitly removed in gnome 3.14. two revisions ago. As GNOME 3.14 is quite different in many incompatible ways with 3.16[1], the fact that they're making that old code work, and updating it to 3.16 is not exactly a trivial task. they haven't implemented any systemd interfaces. they have essentially redirected the systemd calls to proper utilities supported on OpenBSD (such as ntpd), which is defined as a "shim"; GNOME thinks systemd is there, but in reality, the apps that handled stuff before systemd are still handling everything while lying to GNOME. 1. https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome-3-14-and-beyond/ https://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2014/09/07/systemd-in-gnome...
  - peveechi 11y ago
    (Sorry for the long delay; new accounts are somewhat throttled.) The article you link to doesn't support your claims. It explicitly states that Gnome 3.14 (which, btw, is only one revision ago, since Gnome uses the old Linux kernel version scheme) would still support ConsoleKit (i.e. a non-systemd codepath). In fact, Gnome 3.16 still supports ConsoleKit, at least in gdm (see the configure-option here [1]). Can you point out commits where non-systemd support was removed in Gnome 3.14? And what exactly do you mean by "redirected the systemd calls"? Gnome calls certain methods on certain D-Bus objects; if there is a process on OpenBSD that receives these method calls and acts appropriately, why not call that implementing that particular interface? I don't want to diminish the amount of work that went into this port. I find it really great that someone is doing all that work. But I don't think that the picture you paint of this is entirely accurate. You assume that the OpenBSD-guys hate systemd. That might be the case (it probably is for a lot of them), but I don't think that this has anything to do with this video. If the video e.g. had shown that they removed any reference to systemd whatsoever from the Gnome code and inserted some sneering comments, I might agree with your conclusion. But it simply shows that they succeded in porting Gnome 3.16 to OpenBSD. How would this video have had to look, to persuade you of the opposite (i.e. that there were OpenBSD developers that love systemd)? 1. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0#n241 https://git.gnome.org/browse/gdm/tree/configure.ac?id=3.16.0...
    - anonbanker 11y ago
      a positive mention of systemd somewhere would be a good start. Hell, a positive mention of systemd anywhere on an openbsd package maintainer's site would be worth settling for. As for dbus objects, GNOME calls systemd's interfaces to dbus, not dbus directly[1]. Calling dbus, which is already fully supported in *BSD, would be far preferable, and we might not even be having this dicsussion if they did. here's another post with a tad more information on what GNOME needed in order to work on BSD (or even Slackware!)[1][2]. There was a lot of work in this release, and in no way am I attempting to diminish their work. I merely wished to make it clear that systemd was an obstacle they did not reimplement, but rather overcame with the use of shims. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9363060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9363060 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362050 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9362054