On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 19:36:07 +0100 João Miguel <jmcf125@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nonetheless, respecting the quoted principle, I could easily replace > systemd by OpenRC when I chose to. Note that just last month, over 3 > years had passed after systemd was adopted, and I could still use > OpenRC. Now, for whatever reason, the principle was broken without > notice. I'd expect news or an email in this mailing list, to which I've > been paying close attention (though I knew less than the authors about > most problems...). Feels like this post[1] by Adam Jackson fits perfectly. Calling for freedom or choice is not going to help anyone. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html Maintaining a distro is hard, takes a lot of time and effort and nobody here is payed for their work on Arch. If you have problems please talk about those problems, not about workarounds that break. We might be able to resolve actual issues, but to do that we need to know what is broken, not how you work around that breakage. > > Upstreams are integrating support for systemd features and Arch is going > > to be enabling them, whether it's sd_notify support or something else. > Upstream? Then why is it that for the same versions of the same > packages, say, in Gentoo they are not dependencies? Example, compare > these two: > > https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/x11-drivers/xf86-input-evdev/xf86-input-evdev-2.9.2.ebuild > https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/xf86-input-evdev/ If you believe this dependency is wrong create a bug report or talk to the maintainer and find out why they think it is necessary. If it turns out it's incorrect I'm sure it will be removed.
Attachment:
pgpCLwXxfnxEk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
