Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 161

Thread: Systemd 199 Has Its Own D-Bus Client Library

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stqn View Post
    I’m surprised by the automatic setting of sysctl variables… Is it the job of systemd to change default kernel settings? There must be a reason why the kernel devs didn’t make them default, right? (I have no idea what the concerned options do.)
    Notice that systemd is merely shipping a file setting the defaults, this can (of course) be masked or overridden.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    Just use stable, that should give you workable compinations. If a package needs its dep with a certain feature enabled controlled by a USE-Flag portage will compain until you turn on the USE-Flag.
    If there are limitations concerning compatible versions of the dependencies, that's handled, too.
    And don't forget: there are many packages maintaining API (many even ABI) compatibility. If API/ABI breaks (poppler...) that will get known quite fast. Furthermore there is just a small number of packages that are needed by really much packages.
    Of course there still is a quite large number of possible combinations, but managing that is far from impossible - don't forget: Gentoo users have to compile on their own, there are many "testers" for such breakage
    You don't have to market portage here (especially since I'm using it myself). And I'm mostly talking about the things that portage does not know. I.e. automagic deps and hidden version dependency's. That is where the tinderboxes are for.

    I was giving this response to give a practical example that uid313 for wanting a 'loosely coupled and tightly cohesive' is not practically doable.

    Quote Originally Posted by schmalzler View Post
    Concerning your smartd problem: bug #, please!
    Why? (Please don't let this be one of those pathetic attempts to shoosh someone else because he/she is not reporting bugs based on his/her complaints. I hate that.)

    http://marc.info/?t=136402697700001&r=1&w=2

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    systemd, D-Bus, kernel D-Bus?
    It sounds like a big dependency chain where everything is depending on each other and nothing is replacable.
    systemd seems very intrusive.

    Will it be possible to run a system without systemd?
    Will it be possible to replace systemd?
    Will it be possible to remove systemd?
    Using Gentoo, I set it up so that I don't even need D-Bus on my system, so yes, it definitely is possible to go without systemd and dbus, given you are using none of the pre-setup distributions who _will_ require systemd (e.g. Ubuntu).
    Last edited by frign; 03-27-2013 at 11:47 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    Using Gentoo, I set it up so that I don't even need D-Bus on my system .
    I'd really like to know how you can set up a system without dbus when Gnome, KDE and Firefox have dbus as a dependency.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,072

    Default

    Don't use KDE or Gnome. FF could be compiled without it last I checked.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    Using Gentoo, I set it up so that I don't even need D-Bus on my system, so yes, it definitely is possible to go without systemd and dbus, given you are using none of the pre-setup distributions who _will_ require systemd (e.g. Ubuntu).
    Question: Why would you want to do that? Security?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    Question: Why would you want to do that? Security?
    Yep, security. And of course, when was the last time you saw a system running on 38MB RAM with Xorg running? It may be unnecessary in today's aspects, but cutting of unneeded stuff definitely increases security.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cologne, Germany
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    I'd really like to know how you can set up a system without dbus when Gnome, KDE and Firefox have dbus as a dependency.
    I am using DWM instead of Gnome, because Gnome 3 sucks and DWM sucks less (literally, check out http://suckless.org).
    Instead of using Firefox, I employ DWB based on webkit-gtk, which even allows me to drop of GTK+3 out of the ship and only running GTK+2.

    That's how it works

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Don't use KDE or Gnome. FF could be compiled without it last I checked.
    I can't compile it without dbus. Speaking from personal experience on Mageia 2 and Fedora 17.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frign View Post
    I am using DWM instead of Gnome, because Gnome 3 sucks and DWM sucks less (literally, check out http://suckless.org).
    Instead of using Firefox, I employ DWB based on webkit-gtk, which even allows me to drop of GTK+3 out of the ship and only running GTK+2.

    That's how it works
    Yeah I'm aware of the suckless projects. But that must be a lot of work to save 100 megs of RAM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •