Re: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> So, please go educate yourself on what libsystemd0 actually does,
i know what it does, and what it does - technically - is *not* the
issue that i am concerned about.
> and if
> for some reason you still consider it a problem after doing so, you'll
> need to explain why,
i have done so, a number of times. take away the name of the
library. take away what it does. take away how it does it, because
none of those things are relevant.
what *does* concern me is that it takes such incredible (and amazing)
efforts by people like adam for the average end-user or sysadmin to
contemplate replacing {insert nameless package}.
that *is* the problem. i'm aware that there are many people in key
positions in debian who do not see this lack of choice as being the
problem, but i can assure you that it is.
> because as demonstrated in this thread, even those
> developers in Debian who still do care about non-systemd systems do not
> agree with you that it's a problem. See, for instance, Russ's response,
> which you lauded while failing to actually comprehend, since you seem to
> believe that his response described something that needed changing
> rather than describing the current state.
i believe tiredness may be affecting my ability to understand the
point you're trying to make, here. i'm genuinely pleased that russ
(and adam) came up with the same possible solution (dynamic library
loading) that, if deployed, would end this entire issue because it
would allow people to make a choice.
ah. i got it. i worked it out. the sentence that bothered me was
the one which implied that no change is possible. or desirable. i
leave it to you over the next few weeks and months to assess whether
that assertion is true or not: when people continue, over the next few
weeks and months to *not* stop talking about systemd, remember this
moment, yeah?
> We used to build a half-dozen versions of libsdl, with support for
> various libraries, just so that people could avoid installing unused
> libraries on their systems. We don't do that anymore; if you install a
> program based on libsdl, you'll get libsdl1.2debian, which depends on
> libasound2 and libpulse0 and libdirectfb-1.2-9 and libx11-6 and other
> libraries. If you always run against X with ALSA, and never run with
> DirectFB or PulseAudio, then you get a couple of extra libraries on your
> system. Worth it so that libsdl doesn't have to build a half-dozen
> conflicting binary packages.
great! sounds like a sensible decision to me.
question. is libsdl on a par with sysvinit, openrc, systemd and
depinit? no it isn't, is it. if you run a server, do you *really*
need libsdl? no you don't, do you.
and, y'know what: another thing - the very fact that there *is*
choice within libsdl - a lot of it - different backends, different
graphics, different sound libraries, that's... that's fantastic!
... because it's everything that systemd is not.
right now, my deepest concern is that there isn't any other choice.
do you not also perceive that as being a problem?
> You should also learn what the word "unilateral" means; for someone
> willing to pedantically post a link to a dictionary, you seem to have
> failed to read it. Distributions and projects have independently (or,
> if you like, *multilaterally*) started using systemd because it works
> well for them.
yyyeah... i know - because they all took what the upstream developers
provided.... and they all ripped out everything *but* systemd.
and that means we're into a monoculture.
do you see that that is a problem? to make it clear: under what
circumstances has a monoculture traditionally and historicallybeen a
problem, under software-related (and non-software-related)
circumstances?
> And yes, that means they use libsystemd0, whether or not
> they depend on PID 1 at runtime. Your incredulity at how that managed
> to happen does not actually refute that it did.
i never said that it did, nor was i incredulous at how it happened.
i believe i've posted a number of times - twice on this list -
indicating that i have been keeping an eye on this for some time, and
also analysed retrospectively what happened. *at no time* did i post
any kind of unrealistic statements "how did that happen??" i can see
very clearly how it happened, and, importantly - twice at least - i've
gone to some lengths to say that i don't consider it to be anyone's
fault.
... where on earth are you getting this stuff about "how incredulous
i am" from, josh? :) *puzzled and tired*...
l.
Reply to: