On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:52:21PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> 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 that is why you'll find little interest here in entertaining your
argument. You have *not* presented any evidence that Debian is technically
worse off as a result of packages depending on libsystemd0.
> 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.
Your assurances here are unpersuasive. Choice for choice's sake is NOT an
objective of Debian. And your proposal is worse than that; it's not giving
users a real choice at all, because the only alternative you're offering
besides integration with systemd is software NOT integrating with systemd.
This provides no technical value to our users, and is nothing but a sop to
those who object to the string 'systemd' appearing in their dpkg output.
You can waste your own time on such pointless pursuits if you wish. But
stop wasting ours.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature