Re: Who's locking down the code?
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 26/10/2014 4:30 AM, golinux@riseup.net wrote:
> >> The fact that an executable is linked against a systemd library
> >> doesn't automatically mean you have to run systemd as PID1.
> >>
> >> This is especially true for the sd-daemon and sd-journal libraries
> >> in this case.
> >>
> >> Laurent Bigonville
> >>
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > I have heard that argument before. I counter that it's about more
> > than PID1. It seems that even having systemd libraries etc. is a
> > little like being somewhat pregnant - precursors to a little bundle
> > of joy to be delivered at a later date when the PTB see fit. In
> > other words, a trojan of sorts that will come to bite us. Sorry,
> > not much trust these days . . . :(
>
> That is 100% true, I couldn't give a rats if it is PID1 or not. It IS
> systemd, that's more than enough for me to want it OUT -- it's a
> cancer that is spreading and it needs to be eradicated *before* it is
> nigh impossible.
It is an habit in debian to compile the packages with as many options
as possible as long as it's not adding pile of new dependencies or
causing issues to the other packages in the archive.
I don't see how a library that turns itself into a noop if PID1 is
not systemd fits into any of these 2 categories in the case of
util-linux (or probably any packages depending against libsystemd0).
IMHO, if you have the (non-technical?) requirement to not have any
systemd component on your system, you'll have to either start building
your own packages (you can have a look at apt-build) and maybe propose
sensible patches to make it easier for the debian users to opt-out when
rebuilding packages. Or switch to a distribution that allows you to
select which components are enabled at build time.
Laurent Bigonville
Reply to: