Re: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> to debian-developers: the technical issues are irrelevant (and can
> always be solved over time) - it's that you are complicit in removing
> people's software freedom right to choose what to run on their system:
People still have that right, just as they have the right to run a
system without glibc, PAM, or libpng; in all of those cases, they'll
have to do some work to do so, and they shouldn't expect any significant
support from developers for the result.
Consider toning down the hyperbole if you actually care about convincing
anyone who doesn't already agree with you. You're currently complaining
at the developers of one of the only distributions to actually still
make it an *option* to use systemd, rather than making it mandatory. In
particular, anyone following systemd development can easily see the
substantial volume of work that Debian's systemd maintainers have
generously done to *accomodate people who don't want to run their
software*, as well as the substantial effort this puts on people
maintaining the surrounding packages to cope with such configurations.
All while dealing with a regular stream of flames and vitriol about
their work.
> and that really is not
> a judgement, it's simply an insightful summarising statement of fact:
"insightful", really? Do you think yet another thread on debian-devel
really added any significant value? And apparently "users who don't
like systemd" was an insufficiently niche group, so instead you're
starting a thread on behalf of the subset of those users who find the
very sight of the string "systemd" in their package list revolting even
when prefixed by "lib".
> you have the right to choose whether the situation that you are
> complicit in is something that you find acceptable or whether you do
> not. i leave it entirely to you to decide.
"The situation" being a pile of packages that depend on a 183k library,
while going painfully out of their way to avoid any actual dependencies
on systemd as the init system? Oh no, it's a sign of the imminent
apocalypse. </sarcasm>
I for one look forward to the day when configurations without systemd as
the init system finally become so unsupportable that packages can start
actually using systemd features without fear of reprisal, or at least
shift the maintenance burden of such configurations to people who
actually run them and care about them.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: