Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd
On Tue 08 Jul 2014 at 16:22:51 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 12:39:02 +0100
> Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Why should desktops and end-user applications have to depend on
> > > systemd's parts? For mpd, for example. Ok, it's started as daemon
> > > by default, but users can run instances of it for themselves if
> > > they want, and mpd is portable. Why should it have a hard dep on
> > > libsystemd-daemon0 (it had no dep like this previously, and I doubt
> > > mpd will stop their support for windows or bsd... so it must be
> > > enabled by some sort of flag?).
> >
> > There's a nice explanation here[1] of what linking against
> > libsystemd-daemon0 does for a program.
> >
> > > Indeed, it's not systemd's fault if those applications depends on
> > > it. But it's a part of the noise around systemd.
> > >
> >
> > [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743941#10
>
> I don't see anything compelling in that explanation. I might end up
It'd difficult to know what isn't compelling because you do not say. The
explanation in that link is entirely correct and completely factual.
Managing to dismiss these aspects in a few words takes some doing.
Socket activation is seen as desirable by the Printing Team (think of
machines which are energy challenged) and for that requires compilation
with libsystemd-daemon-dev. Users of other init systems are not in the
least affected by this.
I suspect we would not having this conversation if the library were
named libsockact.
Reply to: