Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd
On Fri 18 Jul 2014 at 13:19:21 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 07/18/2014 12:56 PM, Slavko wrote:
>
> > Ahoj,
> >
> > D??a Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:10:58 +0200 Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org>
> > nap??sal:
> >
> >> That's quite afalse this... count every package which depends
> >> direectly or indirectly on systemd, often without real need...
> >
> > If you can decide this (i an not able this), please fill bugreport
> > about unneeded dependency against this (these) package(s).
>
> I think (not having done the research to verify this) that the idea is
> that some - many? - packages need PAM, and depend (perhaps indirectly)
> on an appropriate package for that, but that package now depends
> (perhaps indirectly) on libpam-systemd, which depends on 'systemd-sysv |
> systemd-shim', which results in systemd-sysv getting installed without
> notice, even though the original package didn't need systemd in the
> first place.
>
> The only ways I can see to break this dependency would be to either pull
> the needed functionality out of systemd (which apparently is considered
> hard enough to not be worth doing, at least by the systemd upstream) or
> reverse the order of that '|' dependency, which I believe has been
> rejected on the not unreasonable grounds that it would result in not
> installing systemd even for people who *don't* care about having it. (As
> well as on the grounds that systemd-shim won't continue to provide the
> needed functionality for newer systemd versions, unless people update it
> in ways that haven't happened yet.)
The objection to 'systemd-shim | systemd-sysv' was on the more objective
grounds that systemd-sysv provides the *default* init system.
It remains to be seen whether systemd-shim is a dead-end.
Reply to: