Daniel Reurich wrote:
> On 04/03/16 12:42, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Considering the systemd team has been focusing on sd-bus, how
> > systemd-free is dbus?
> >
> Our package doesn't depend on systemd, libsystemd0 or libpam-systemd

It does constitute fundamental protocol used and depended on
by many parts of the systemd ecosystem, however doesn't
involve the init system, so you're free of that. Being that
so much complex code is built on dbus, Pottering and co
guarantee that dbus will not be broken by updates in the
protocol. There is some question (at least I am ignorant)
whether how backward compatible sdbus will be with dbus.
Also will you have a choice to not use kernel-mediated
boundary crossing sdbus in future?

So there is some borginess(tm) there.

IIRC Linus commented that the only reason for sdbus is that
dbus code is badly implemented.

So caveat emptor, and as the japanese say, TADA YORI TAKAI
MONO GA NAI (nothing is more expensive than [what appears to
be given for] free.) People should think about that when
signing up for Gmail!

cheers,

Joel (yes, I have a gmail account, another type of
borginess)


> --
> Daniel Reurich
> Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd.
> 021 797 722
>



> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng


--
Joel Roth