Gentoo is not GnomeOS : if people wants gnome, they will get systemd, but gentoo default init is openrc. The handbook is about installing gentoo, not about installing gnome. I'm against seeing this systemd cite in "Installing Gentoo Base System" section. Put it in "alternative installation" or "gnome" documentation, or the "1a What are my options" but not in section 6. Why are you giving more audience to systemd by citing it in Gentoo Base System section if it's not to imply, gentoo base system use systemd. And don't spread the FUD with the "it's state as optional" please. I hate that systemd concept, i'm not telling lie, so please be kind to do the same as me. Calling a cat a cat. And if you still don't want to move out this where it belongs (to me in a trash), then do something as this link put also shame on gentoo. Why : Because i hate systemd enough to know Systemd is not systemd and showing a link to that url is just pointing out how bad that link is and hurt the documentation correctness. So revert that change that has nothing to do in that section, even if systemd fans will cry to loose their sneaky step into their world domination. Did they brainwash your head ? FFS click on any other handbook like ia64 and you will see installing systemd on ia64 as optional : https://packages.gentoo.org/package/sys-apps/systemd I see 0 stable version for alpha, hppa, ia64 and sparc there ! So we are to this point : promote that crappy systemd at any cost ! Gentoo accept to drop its documentation correctness and value, giving systemd as optional in arch documentation that doesn't even have a stable version of systemd keyword or even to arch that simply cannot make that shitty unportable thing working. I'm surprise Council keep saying no exception and keep general rules and seeing systemd got an exception made for no reason. Else why no other options are cite too, like using busybox, upstart, runit and all their friends. Another note while i'm at it : section 1a is wrong <How is the Installation Structured?> - Wrong in numbering as configuring the kernel is done at step 7, so "After step 6, you have compiled your Linux kernel" is wrong. Just to show this one, but all are mismatch. - Wrong as this is now false : "After step 5, core packages, which are the same on all Gentoo installations, are installed". Because of that systemd exception. Reproducible: Always Expected Results: Stop systemd propaganda and get back to a more serious documentation.
Stéphane Pagnon raises a good point about systemd being added to the manual architectures where it is not keyworded. I suggest that the documentation team revert and place this in the GNOME configuration howto: https://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gnome-config.xml
also Pacho and other Gnome Team systemd fanboys revert gnome-3.6* packages back. That's not fun deliberately removing packages in favor of systemd-dependant ones. As pointed by reporter, originally it supposed to be decided by Council, where to go and what to do with this gnome madness
Gnome is tied to systemd's logind by upstream developer decision. The most active upstream developers use systemd-based distros and are apparently uninterested in supporting anything else. If you want to fork logind, integrate it into Gentoo's openrc, *and then maintain it for the foreseeable future, keeping it in sync with systemd upstream* (maintaining it is the key part!) - we would absolutely love to use your work. But until someone does this work, we are stuck with systemd.
I won't discuss this again: Oleg, I already explained you the issue time ago via mail, also was discussed in mailing lists the reasons for doing that, I also added some ways (the openrc-force USE flag) to even allow people to run a "semi-broken" gnome desktop with openrc... what more do you want? Is this simply another try to boycott systemd?
not at all, not any kind of boycott (even if i want). My concern is, making documentation make me think systemd and it's state in Gentoo is more/less useable. It's not, it's forever beta state, even upstream. Systemd in linux-only, means alternative Gentoo arches are out of play. With forced gnome ebuilds removal, it forcing to use raw stability (in Gentoo, no idea other distros) packages. So far, older packages giving less issues than gnome-3.8-3.10. I'd never complain if older ebuilds still available in tree.
Sabayon switched to systemd months ago and everything is running smooth. Where do you get the "forever beta state" from?
There is nothing for comrel to do here apart from kindly asking you to be more careful with how you express yourself in bugzilla. This is not a forum, so attempts to start a flame or create a mess will be stopped whatsoever. Gnome requires systemd full stop. A good number of users are using gnome so documenting how to install systemd feels natural. Moreover, people want to use systemd outside of gnome so documenting it, again, feels natural. If you don't want it, don't use it. If you want the old gnome back, the ebuilds are in sources.gentoo.org. There is plenty of documentation on how to setup and use your own overlay. Opening bugs, asking developers to bring old packages back because you can't be bothered to do it yourself in your overlay, or better yet, refuse to migrate to what upstream suggests, only wastes your and our time and it certainly does not help moving Gentoo forward.
How can you close my bug telling i'm asking gnome old version back ? Or because systemd is working good on sabayon ? - Why Gentoo should care about Sabayon ? - Did i said systemd is not working good ? - Do i ask old gnome back ? Is it what i have speak about ? I knew already that bug have tiny chance of beeing fix as i suggest, but please, at least : find a proper REASON ! Out of reason i clearly state i hate systemd propagenda i've put REAL reasons to revert it : - This is not the right place in the documentation - There's no reason to promote systemd over other init system - <S>ystemd link to the wiki is a shame : You are so blinded you cannot even see that wiki is wrong with systemd name and so the documentation showing that link too. - systemd is cite as optional on arch that doesn't support it or arch that don't even have any stable version... in the installation handbook !!!
Dear User, Please try to keep some level of quality on Bugzilla. Fixing bugs is important for us but we have limited manpower, so please try to report bugs in a way that allows us to quickly diagnose problems and solve them rather than raising unnecessary and unpleasant discussions. If you found a bug in our docs, please name the bug accordingly (like 'docs say X inccorectly') and explain what you feel that is wrong. Attach all the *relevant* information that could help us understand what's wrong and any suggestions that could help us fixing it. And only that. Please understand that we're almost all volunteers that do this for free, in our free time. We don't make any money out of Gentoo. I don't know what is the state of economy in your country but you should understand that in some countries people have to work really hard to make living, and yet they donate their free time to work on Gentoo. That said, I can tell what you could give us in return: some respect. Accusations and provocations don't help. Neither do your long political monologues. First of all, we lose precious time reading and answering them, and effectively we fix less important bugs. Then, we are becoming discouraged from working on Gentoo and even less bugs are fixed. In the end, your bug doesn't even get any attention because nobody wants to read something offensive to him or his collegues that doesn't actually reach any real point. Please understand that we're just humans. We make mistakes, and we're happy to help if you are willing to tell us what the mistakes are in a friendly, non-offensive and concise way. And if you're just trying to do some kind of hate-politics, then please go elsewhere. We're a technical community and we don't enjoy throwing rocks at people.
Thanks for that comment. If the reported phrases his question/problem properly so we can assign it to correct people, then we can re-open this bug. But right now it's not clear what the problem is. So, Stephane, take a moment to calm down, and write your exact problem without the systemd-hate wrapper.
You might notice i have comply (well, maybe not, but honestly i tried) to your comments in bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=493230 But i do think it was add to section 6 for political reason and i do think it should be taken out of section 6 for the same reason : even i don't like it, it won't remove systemd, just putting the balance back to neutrality, as it's a clear step to push it toward systemd adoption. In my new bug report, i have done like the original bug report : a hidden political attempt : if you add systemd add all other init alternative. It's the same level as "Add systemd to section 6 as gnome user need it" I'm afraid, there's really a political reason to remove or add it to section 6. Preventing me from pointing this out won't remove that fact.
I still don't understand what you are saying. There are no political reasons for documenting systemd or putting it into the handbook and I suggest you stop this game now. @all. Removing comrel from here. If systemd@ or docs-team@ feels there is a trolling or flame attempt here, please CC us back. For now I assume you are able to handle the situation yourself.
I've updated the CC and assigned fields as the bug is meant for the docs-team, not for systemd. I've also reopened the bug as it's up to the docs-team to choose how to address this bug. (In reply to Stéphane Pagnon from comment #0) > I'm against seeing this systemd cite in "Installing Gentoo Base System" > section. > Put it in "alternative installation" or "gnome" documentation, or the "1a > What are my options" but not in section 6. > Why are you giving more audience to systemd by citing it in Gentoo Base > System section if it's not to imply, gentoo base system use systemd. > And don't spread the FUD with the "it's state as optional" please. > I hate that systemd concept, i'm not telling lie, so please be kind to do > the same as me. Calling a cat a cat. Having read the linked bugs, and not being a member of the docs-team, I would suggest that if anyone's goal is not to have systemd treated in a "special way" regarding the alternatives, then one should create documentation pages for the alternatives and ask the docs-team if they're willing to change section 6c to cover "alternative init systems" and have it either redirect to a page with the alternatives, including systemd, or just list them there with links for the respective documentation. > Why : Because i hate systemd enough to know Systemd is not systemd and > showing a link to that url is just pointing out how bad that link is and > hurt the documentation correctness. Alex already informed you in one of the other bugs that our WIKI system requires pages to be capitalized, that's why the link shows up as "../Systemd". This is a technical issue without a workaround (at least for now).
(In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #13) > > Having read the linked bugs, and not being a member of the docs-team, I > would suggest that if anyone's goal is not to have systemd treated in a > "special way" regarding the alternatives, then one should create > documentation pages for the alternatives and ask the docs-team if they're > willing to change section 6c to cover "alternative init systems" and have it > either redirect to a page with the alternatives, including systemd, or just > list them there with links for the respective documentation. I would suggest continuing in bug 493230, where I already tried to push discussion productively forward. > > > Why : Because i hate systemd enough to know Systemd is not systemd and > > showing a link to that url is just pointing out how bad that link is and > > hurt the documentation correctness. > > Alex already informed you in one of the other bugs that our WIKI system > requires pages to be capitalized, that's why the link shows up as > "../Systemd". This is a technical issue without a workaround (at least for > now). Might I add, that's not an 'issue', rather by design. Nothing to fix, nothing to workaround.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 493230 ***
