Re: Survey answers part 1: systemd has too many dependencies, …
Hi Ondřej,
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> writes:
> and if I match this with the table at:
> http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html I get
> the result that you will _not_ compile systemd with:
>
> libselinux.so
> libpam.so
> libwrap.so
> libaudit.so
> libkmod.so
>
> because they are marked as optional in the table.
I’m sorry that this is unclear. I updated the document, saying:
Whether compiling systemd without this dependency is supported by
upstream. This does not automatically mean that Debian choses to make
these parts optional.
To further expand on this: It was my impression that people thought
systemd had _hard_ dependencies on many parts when that actually isn’t
true. In particular, this was used as an argument against using systemd
on embedded devices. While I happily use systemd on devices such as the
Raspberry Pi, I can understand that other people might have stricter
constraints on binary sizes. Therefore, they could recompile the systemd
package if they can live without a few features. In case demand is high
enough and there is somebody who volunteers to maintain such a package,
we would be open to talk about having a systemd-light package which is
specfically targeted on such devices. It’d probably make sense to
maintain this as part of one of the embedded spins we have,
e.g. Emdebian — but I am not very familiar with those and their current
state.
But, to be very clear, I certainly don’t see the need to strip down
systemd in Debian for the general use case (including embedded devices
and servers). That is energy which could be much better spent elsewhere.
--
Best regards,
Michael
Reply to: