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

Re: Okay, that's too much now!

Erik Lauritsen wrote:

I have been a Debian user for more than 15 years, when the "war"
about systemd broke out I mostly ignored it, I just removed systemd
from my systems because I don't like the implementation.

Today I was setting up a new Debian system and wanted to remove
systemd only to find our that the old tools "bsdutils" has been made
dependent upon libsystemd0

"This package contains the bare minimum of BSD utilities needed for a
Debian system: logger, renice, script, scriptreplay, and wall. The
remaining standard BSD utilities are provided by bsdmainutils."

What the freaking !#¤"#¤"¤#"#%" are people doing!?

Why the hell has this collections of utilities from FreeBSD been made
dependent upon libsystemd0!?!?!?

The bsdutils package (which is built from the *util-linux* source
package) contains reimplementation of tools that were initially existing
on BSD, not the BSD utilities themselves.

And to answer the question why that package has a dependency against
_libsystemd0_ package, it's because the logger utility is also writing
to the systemd journal if it's running in addition to good old syslog.
Not enabling the feature would mean functionally loss for people who
want to use systemd functionalities.

Freedom of choice my ass!

Well the fact that you have a dependency against _libsystemd0_ doesn't
say anything about running systemd running as PID1 as it turns itself to
a noop is PID1 is not systemd.

I personally still have troubles to understand why this is even an
issue. There are tenth of libraries that are installed on a debian
system that are only useful for some limited use-case (libselinux or
libaudit for example), Debian has a policy of enabling most (if not all)
the features in its packages, why is libsystemd suddenly a problem?

But if having libsystemd0 installed on your system is a problem for you,
you still have the freedom to rebuild the packages to remove it


Laurent Bigonville

Reply to: