Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
Le Sat, 01 Nov 2014 07:56:30 -0400,
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> a écrit :
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> Martin Read wrote:
> >>> On 01/11/14 01:53, lee wrote:
> >>>> It doesn't need these code paths. The library doesn't do
> >>>> anything unless you do have the software actually running which
> >>>> the library makes useable --- at least that's what was said.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, not all cases are the same, yet in this case, the
> >>>> library shouldn't be installed unless the software it is for is
> >>>> installed.
> >>> Gentoo and Funtoo are ----> over there, just like they were
> >>> months ago when you first started complaining about systemd on
> >>> debian-user.
> >>>
> >>> If you move over to using them instead of Debian, you'll probably
> >>> be happier (because you'll have more control over what software
> >>> runs on your systems and how it's configured) and the Debian
> >>> maintainers will probably be happier (because there will be one
> >>> fewer person haranguing them for refusing to embrace
> >>> combinatorial explosion).
> >>>
> >>> Everyone wins.
> >> Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite the
> >> rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and going
> >> home."
> > Various people have tried to explain how a binary distribution like
> > Debian works (build packages with all options included by defauls)
> > and how shared libraries work on Linux (all the libraries need to
> > be there to satisfy symbol resolution at run time, even if none of
> > the code is ever used). When those explanations fell on deaf ears,
> > people have resorted to analogy. That was clearly a waste of time
> > too.
> >
> > These are standard "rules" that have existed for many years, there
> > is no rewriting going on at all. Instead, it seems there are people
> > who won't, or don't want to, understand explanations when given. For
> > people who claim to have technical backgrounds, that's a surprising
> > (and very frustrating) problem.
> >
>
> Yeah... the Unix way... which systemd and it's pieces violate in so
> many ways.
Surprisingly 10th of different executables talking to each other using
a common IPC mechanism (dbus here) seems to be really "unixy" to me...
Reply to: