systemd alternative for Jessie?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
32 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

systemd alternative for Jessie?

tom arnall-2
I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
with Jessie?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Ric Moore
On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote:
> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
> with Jessie?

No. :) Ric

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Joel Rees-3

2015/10/14 13:24 "Ric Moore" <[hidden email]>:
>
> On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote:
>>
>> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
>> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
>> with Jessie?
>
>
> No. :) Ric

I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but

https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd

Also, this is something I just saw:

http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Now, I must say, as near as I can tell, there is no escaping from the influence of the cabal at this point, but is that what the OP was asking?

Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

tom arnall-2
i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?

who  decided that Debian shd be locked to systemd?

what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the question?

is it true that Red Hat had a major influence on the Debian decision makers?

from what i've read so far, systemd is still very much in beta at
best. wd people on this list agree with that?


On 10/13/15, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2015/10/14 13:24 "Ric Moore" <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote:
>>>
>>> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
>>> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
>>> with Jessie?
>>
>>
>> No. :) Ric
>
> I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd
>
> Also, this is something I just saw:
>
> http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>
> Now, I must say, as near as I can tell, there is no escaping from the
> influence of the cabal at this point, but is that what the OP was asking?
>
> Joel Rees
>
> Computer memory is just fancy paper,
> CPUs just fancy pens.
> All is a stream of text
> flowing from the past into the future.
>


--
Once its survival is on the line, a species will often find powers
unimaginable in the days of its complacency.





On 10/13/15, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2015/10/14 13:24 "Ric Moore" <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote:
>>>
>>> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
>>> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
>>> with Jessie?
>>
>>
>> No. :) Ric
>
> I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd
>
> Also, this is something I just saw:
>
> http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>
> Now, I must say, as near as I can tell, there is no escaping from the
> influence of the cabal at this point, but is that what the OP was asking?
>
> Joel Rees
>
> Computer memory is just fancy paper,
> CPUs just fancy pens.
> All is a stream of text
> flowing from the past into the future.
>


--
Once its survival is on the line, a species will often find powers
unimaginable in the days of its complacency.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Ansgar Burchardt-9
Hi,

tom arnall <[hidden email]> writes:
> i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
> that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?

> On 10/13/15, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd

The linked note explains how to do the *initial* installation without
systemd which seems a bit complicated. If you want to use some other
init implementation, I would recommend doing a regular install and then
replacing systemd-sysv as described on [1].

  [1] <https://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser#systemd>

> who  decided that Debian shd be locked to systemd?

It's not.

> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the question?

If you want to know how Debian's technical committee came to choose
systemd as the default init, see [2].

  [2] <https://bugs.debian.org/727708>

> is it true that Red Hat had a major influence on the Debian decision makers?

No. As far as I know that conspiracy theory is about as true as the
other one about the moon landings being fake. ;)

> from what i've read so far, systemd is still very much in beta at
> best. wd people on this list agree with that?

No.

Ansgar

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Darac Marjal-2
In reply to this post by tom arnall-2
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:55:36AM -0700, tom arnall wrote:
> i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
> that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?
>
> who  decided that Debian shd be locked to systemd?

The Debian Technical Committee (tech-ctte) were asked to "vote on and
decide on the default init system for debian)[1]. Discussion took place
over five months and votes were cast. The result [2] ended in a tie
between systemd and upstart. The tie was resolved by the tech-ctte
Chairman (who was at that time Bdale Garbee), who voted for systemd.

The tech-ctte are empowered by the debian constitution to decide on any
matter of technical policy, and is composed of Debian Developers (DDs)
appointed by the Debian Project Leader.

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#6729

>
> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the question?
>

As noted above, bug #727708 was open for several months, plus there was
lively debate on both the -devel and -user mailing lists.

>
> is it true that Red Hat had a major influence on the Debian decision makers?
>
Perhaps you're referring to
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#6959
>
> from what i've read so far, systemd is still very much in beta at
> best. wd people on this list agree with that?

That may be the case, but it is already significantly better than SysV
init. If, as you suggest, it's in beta, then it can only get better with
everyone's help.

>
>
> On 10/13/15, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2015/10/14 13:24 "Ric Moore" <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
> >>> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
> >>> with Jessie?
> >>
> >>
> >> No. :) Ric
> >
> > I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but
> >
> > https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd
> >
> > Also, this is something I just saw:
> >
> > http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> >
> > Now, I must say, as near as I can tell, there is no escaping from the
> > influence of the cabal at this point, but is that what the OP was asking?
> >
> > Joel Rees
> >
> > Computer memory is just fancy paper,
> > CPUs just fancy pens.
> > All is a stream of text
> > flowing from the past into the future.
> >
>
>
> --
> Once its survival is on the line, a species will often find powers
> unimaginable in the days of its complacency.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/13/15, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 2015/10/14 13:24 "Ric Moore" <[hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
> >>> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
> >>> with Jessie?
> >>
> >>
> >> No. :) Ric
> >
> > I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but
> >
> > https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd
> >
> > Also, this is something I just saw:
> >
> > http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> >
> > Now, I must say, as near as I can tell, there is no escaping from the
> > influence of the cabal at this point, but is that what the OP was asking?
> >
> > Joel Rees
> >
> > Computer memory is just fancy paper,
> > CPUs just fancy pens.
> > All is a stream of text
> > flowing from the past into the future.
> >
>
>
> --
> Once its survival is on the line, a species will often find powers
> unimaginable in the days of its complacency.
>
--
For more information, please reread.

signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Liam O'Toole
In reply to this post by tom arnall-2
On 2015-10-14, tom arnall <[hidden email]> wrote:

> i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
> that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?
>
> who  decided that Debian shd be locked to systemd?
>
> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the question?
>
> is it true that Red Hat had a major influence on the Debian decision makers?
>
> from what i've read so far, systemd is still very much in beta at
> best. wd people on this list agree with that?

The subject has already been debated to hell and back on this and other
lists. Please, not again.

Liam

>
>
> On 10/13/15, Joel Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 2015/10/14 13:24 "Ric Moore" <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/2015 11:20 PM, tom arnall wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am running Wheezy and notice that the boot options include but
>>>> aren't limited to systemd. Is it possible to have this arrangement
>>>> with Jessie?
>>>
>>>
>>> No. :) Ric
>>
>> I tend to be wandering around way out in left field a lot, but
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd
>>
>> Also, this is something I just saw:
>>
>> http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>>
>> Now, I must say, as near as I can tell, there is no escaping from the
>> influence of the cabal at this point, but is that what the OP was asking?
>>
>> Joel Rees
>>
>> Computer memory is just fancy paper,
>> CPUs just fancy pens.
>> All is a stream of text
>> flowing from the past into the future.
>>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

tomas@tuxteam.de
In reply to this post by tom arnall-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:55:36AM -0700, tom arnall wrote:
> i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
> that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?

That depends on your expectations wrt desktop. If you target a fat DE,
it'll be difficult (for Gnome perhaps nigh impossible dunno).

If you just need a window manager, then it'll turn out as fairly easy.

> who  decided that Debian shd be locked to systemd?

It was a pretty intense fight. Where were you at that time? At the
end, the Debian Technical Committee decided systemd to be the default
init system. Many didn't like that decision, but it wasn't taken
lightly.

> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the question?

Come on. I strongly dislike systemd myself, and my Debian boxes will
be systemd-less, but still: there was discssion. A lot of it. You
may dislike the outcome. I may dislike it. But nobody can say things
went through in secret.

> is it true that Red Hat had a major influence on the Debian decision makers?

In a way, yes -- but mostly it was the big upstream packages (e.g.
Gnome) tying closely to systemd services. Debian would have had to
ditch Gnome as default DE, or maintain a systemd-less fork of
Gnome. And other DEs are jumping on that train too (for whatever
reasons. Ask them, not me).

> from what i've read so far, systemd is still very much in beta at
> best. wd people on this list agree with that?

That will depend on whom you ask.

Note that this has been very traumatic. Best to avoid drama, whichever
"side" you are on. Be nice and polite to the other "side" -- they are
doing free software as you are, after all.

*If* you care about alternatives to systemd within Debian, then please
*do something about it*. Besides the above mentioned page, which is
IMHO pretty good (if somewhat short on details), there's Devuan, there's
Thorsten Glaser <https://www.mirbsd.org/~tg/Debs/debidx.htm>, there's
a set of slides by Axel Beckert <https://noone.org/>.

Do something. But leave personal attacks out of it. Pretty please. We've
had too much of that (in both directions).

Thanks for listening to my soapbox :-)

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYeIXwACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaKPwCcDs3AaGq6IMgmWJxhXOGqkMYE
ndoAnj3NnS66R45C5AbQIDTti1gXm/1g
=9ths
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Alex Moonshine-2
In reply to this post by tom arnall-2
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 00:55:36 -0700
tom arnall <[hidden email]> wrote:

> i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
> that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?

http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_remove_systemd_from_a_Debian_jessie/sid_installation
this should do the trick for you. Or Devuan.


> who  decided that Debian shd be locked to systemd?

Technical Committee. There was a lot of drama, mind you.
 
> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the
> question?

What do you imagine they could do?

> is it true that Red Hat had a major influence on the Debian decision
> makers?

Is it true that people like to invent conspiracy theories about
something they know nothing about?

> from what i've read so far, systemd is still very much in beta at
> best. wd people on this list agree with that?

Try it for yourself. It won't bite you or infect you with AIDS. Then
decide if it is "pretty much beta". I've been using systemd for >2
years on Sid and I'm happy with it.

--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Best wishes,
Alex S.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Richard Owlett-3
In reply to this post by Ansgar Burchardt-9
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> tom arnall <[hidden email]> writes:
>>[SNIP]
>
>> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the question?
>
> If you want to know how Debian's technical committee came to choose
> systemd as the default init, see [2].
>
>    [2] <https://bugs.debian.org/727708>
>

That page explicitly answers "How?" [with a emphasis perhaps on
the mechanics on how the formal side of the Debian community works].

An underlying incompletely answered question is "Why?"
There have been partial answers written by and for geeks.
What has the end-user, with a single machine, gained today from
the adoption of systemd?

During the furor I tried chasing down links by systemd
proponents. All I found were descriptions of how it made life
easier for developers and those administering multi-user systems.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Alex Moonshine-2
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:49:08 -0500
Richard Owlett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What has the end-user, with a single machine, gained today from
> the adoption of systemd?

Speaking for myself:
1. It took me an hour of googling to write my own working init script.
It takes me 10 minutes to write my own systemd unit.
2. Boot times improved.

Other than that, no difference.
--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Best wishes,
Alex S.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

tomas@tuxteam.de
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:49:08AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

[...]

> >   [2] <https://bugs.debian.org/727708>
> >
>
> That page explicitly answers "How?" [with a emphasis perhaps on the
> mechanics on how the formal side of the Debian community works].
>
> An underlying incompletely answered question is "Why?"
> There have been partial answers written by and for geeks.
> What has the end-user, with a single machine, gained today from the
> adoption of systemd?
>
> During the furor I tried chasing down links by systemd proponents.
> All I found were descriptions of how it made life easier for
> developers and those administering multi-user systems.

I think I outed my position on that well enough, but still: do you use
Gnome (perhaps KDE, don't know for sure about this)?

Then you have a "why" too!

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYeXkMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb7iwCfS+Qjnqr7Yk4yv6esNpEgBCR3
/Z0AnRzBc4ZqBinlsCsNGHsSNCphfAgy
=ekiy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
On Wednesday 14 October 2015 13:49:08 Richard Owlett wrote:

> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > tom arnall <[hidden email]> writes:
> >>[SNIP]
> >>
> >> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the
> >> question?
> >
> > If you want to know how Debian's technical committee came to choose
> > systemd as the default init, see [2].
> >
> >    [2] <https://bugs.debian.org/727708>
>
> That page explicitly answers "How?" [with a emphasis perhaps on
> the mechanics on how the formal side of the Debian community works].
>
> An underlying incompletely answered question is "Why?"
> There have been partial answers written by and for geeks.
> What has the end-user, with a single machine, gained today from
> the adoption of systemd?

Far faster boot up and shut down times.  And it does seem to be much faster.

> During the furor I tried chasing down links by systemd
> proponents. All I found were descriptions of how it made life
> easier for developers and those administering multi-user systems.

Most of the furor I have seen has been the complete opposite.  Developers and
systems administrators complaining that systemd made life harder.

Please note that I am not saying that all administrators and developers said
that.  Merely that most of those complaining at least claim to be
administrators etc., and claim that systemd is only really an advantage to
the single desktop user.

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by tomas@tuxteam.de
On Wednesday 14 October 2015 10:33:48 [hidden email] wrote:
> That depends on your expectations wrt desktop. If you target a fat DE,
> it'll be difficult (for Gnome perhaps nigh impossible dunno).

I understood that Gnome3 depends on systemd.

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Richard Owlett-3
In reply to this post by Lisi Reisz
Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Wednesday 14 October 2015 13:49:08 Richard Owlett wrote:
>> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> tom arnall <[hidden email]> writes:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>
>>>> what did they do to poll the views of the user community on the
>>>> question?
>>>
>>> If you want to know how Debian's technical committee came to choose
>>> systemd as the default init, see [2].
>>>
>>>     [2] <https://bugs.debian.org/727708>
>>
>> That page explicitly answers "How?" [with a emphasis perhaps on
>> the mechanics on how the formal side of the Debian community works].
>>
>> An underlying incompletely answered question is "Why?"
>> There have been partial answers written by and for geeks.
>> What has the end-user, with a single machine, gained today from
>> the adoption of systemd?
>
> Far faster boot up and shut down times.  And it does seem to be much faster.
>
>> During the furor I tried chasing down links by systemd
>> proponents. All I found were descriptions of how it made life
>> easier for developers and those administering multi-user systems.
>
> Most of the furor I have seen has been the complete opposite.  Developers and
> systems administrators complaining that systemd made life harder.
>

I was restricting my search to PROponents of systemd. IOW I was
looking for a systemd sales-pitch. What I got reminded me of a
used car salesman I met when shopping for my first car. I'd
specified I needed a car for urban commuting, he insisted on
touting its off road capability. Needless to say I never went
back to that dealer.


> Please note that I am not saying that all administrators and developers said
> that.  Merely that most of those complaining at least claim to be
> administrators etc., and claim that systemd is only really an advantage to
> the single desktop user.
>
> Lisi
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Ric Moore
In reply to this post by tom arnall-2
On 10/14/2015 03:55 AM, tom arnall wrote:
> i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
> that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?

Yes, you failed to google on month's worth of hundreds of old posts
concerning this or you just happen to enjoy trolling. :/ Ric

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Joel Rees-3

2015/10/15 0:15 "Ric Moore" <[hidden email]>:
>
> On 10/14/2015 03:55 AM, tom arnall wrote:
>>
>> i read the piece on installing  without systemd. i get the feeling
>> that the bottom line of it is: good luck. or am i missing something?
>
>
> Yes, you failed to google on month's worth of hundreds of old posts concerning this or you just happen to enjoy trolling. :/ Ric
>

So what did you mean, when you said, no?

That something about the old arrangement would not be available in Jessie?

Joel Rees

Computer memory is just fancy paper,
CPUs just fancy pens.
All is a stream of text
flowing from the past into the future.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

recoverym4n
In reply to this post by Lisi Reisz
        Hi.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:18:23 +0100
Lisi Reisz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wednesday 14 October 2015 10:33:48 [hidden email] wrote:
> > That depends on your expectations wrt desktop. If you target a fat DE,
> > it'll be difficult (for Gnome perhaps nigh impossible dunno).
>
> I understood that Gnome3 depends on systemd.

That's not correct assumption (as of jessie, at least).

GDM3 depends on systemd (or rather, on libpam-systemd).
GNOME3 itself does not (as of jessie, at least).

If GNOME is started via any other display manager other then GDM3 - it
happily works without systemd. And that's the way it should be, IMO, as
there's nothing in GNOME (yet?) to justify such dependency.

Reco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

Lisi Reisz
On Wednesday 14 October 2015 17:06:09 Reco wrote:

> Hi.
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:18:23 +0100
>
> Lisi Reisz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 October 2015 10:33:48 [hidden email] wrote:
> > > That depends on your expectations wrt desktop. If you target a fat DE,
> > > it'll be difficult (for Gnome perhaps nigh impossible dunno).
> >
> > I understood that Gnome3 depends on systemd.
>
> That's not correct assumption (as of jessie, at least).

It's not an assumption.  I just understood that that was the case because
someone had said it.  I do not use it, and don't mind about it, so hadn't
checked.  The only thing I assumed about Gnome3 was that I wouldn't like it,
and when I saw it I didn't.

Is it the case in Sid or Stretch?  Question, not assumption.

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: systemd alternative for Jessie?

recoverym4n
        Hi.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:36:40 +0100
Lisi Reisz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wednesday 14 October 2015 17:06:09 Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:18:23 +0100
> >
> > Lisi Reisz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 14 October 2015 10:33:48 [hidden email] wrote:
> > > > That depends on your expectations wrt desktop. If you target a fat DE,
> > > > it'll be difficult (for Gnome perhaps nigh impossible dunno).
> > >
> > > I understood that Gnome3 depends on systemd.
> >
> > That's not correct assumption (as of jessie, at least).
>
> It's not an assumption.  I just understood that that was the case because
> someone had said it.  I do not use it, and don't mind about it, so hadn't
> checked.  The only thing I assumed about Gnome3 was that I wouldn't like it,
> and when I saw it I didn't.

I quit using Gnome back in '07. But to answer whenever X depends on Y
one does not need to use X or Y. 'apt-cache' or two is usually enough.


> Is it the case in Sid or Stretch?  Question, not assumption.

A quick glance on "gdm3" and "gnome-shell" dependencies shows that
things are the same in current testing and sid as of now.

As you surely know, everything in testing or sid is changing
constantly, so I won't rely on this in the long run if I was you.

Reco

12