[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libsystemd [was: Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?]

> Once per thread about systemd, I point out that dbus-daemon links to both
> libapparmor and libselinux - which results in at least one useless library
> for literally everyone with dbus installed, since "major" LSMs don't
> stack, so nobody can possibly be using both AppArmor and SELinux at the same
> time. Oddly enough, nobody has complained about that, only about
> libsystemd...

Thanks for hint.

> In particular, changing programs to dlopen libsystemd is actively harmful -
> it is not just a waste of effort, it would also defeat Debian's
> deb-symbols(5) mechanism.


> Now that we have versioned Provides, you could substitute a stub version
> of the shared libsystemd without recompiling *anything*, if it matters
> so much to you. Make sure to tell the libsystemd maintainers you have
> done so, so that they can make reportbug report whether the stub version
> is installed, and reassign all bug reports involving the stub version to
> be analyzed by its maintainer and minimize the amount of their time that
> is unnecessarily taken up by it.

Well, that wasn't my idea. But after some research I concluded, that
to implement this stub would require more job of understanding
library, then I expected.

> I honestly don't think this is a good idea even if you will never run
> systemd, though. One of the reasons that is frequently given for
> avoiding systemd is reducing the (perceived or real) complexity of the
> overall system... but every time there's a swappable component, that's
> an increase in complexity.

You convinced me. If I pursue simplicity, it would be better to just
recompile packages to get rid of unwanted dependencies.

Back to original topic -- dear maintainers, please do not (complicate
usage|make unusable) your packages on sysvinit systems.

Accept: text/plain, text/x-diff
Accept-Language: eo,en,ru
X-Web-Site: sinsekvu.github.io

Reply to: