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

Re: pointless systemd dependencies

On Mon, 7 May 2018, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:47:51AM +0000, David Griffith wrote:

Could we start the process of identifying packages that have
dependencies on systemd in some way that is are not actually


I understand your concerns. I, myself don't like systemd. But *if*
you actually want something changed, you'll have to pick up some
legwork yourself, like, for example, understand what libsystemd
is actually doing in some package of your choice.

But first of all, you'll have to accept that there are folks out
there (who are at least as smart as you and me) who do like systemd,
and that packagers want to cater to those folks as well. So if some
binary wants to be able to work with systemd when it's there, perhaps
linking against libsystemd is the right thing to do. A package
maintainer won't keep around two versions of her package, one compiled
against libsystemd and another without it. Especially because that
doesn't scale well: someone might not like libdbus, someone else
quibbles about libselinux -- and we are already at eight binary
versions for one executable.

Sometimes binary distributions do have a cost, convenient as they

If "no systemd" purism is your thing, there's Devuan. There are
pretty smart folks over there too.

How many packages are there that could possibly need to be linked against systemd?

David Griffith

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Reply to: