Re: pointless systemd dependencies
On Mon 07 May 2018 at 05:50:27 -0700, David Griffith wrote:
> On May 7, 2018 4:39:22 AM PDT, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >On 2018-05-06 at 21:47, David Griffith wrote:
> >
> >> Could we start the process of identifying packages that have
> >> dependencies on systemd in some way that is are not actually
> >> required?
> >
> >This is a seriously nontrivial task.
> >
> >As I understand matters, the only sure way to do it would be something
> >like:
> >
> >1. Start with a systemd-free computer.
> >
> >2. Attempt to install a package.
> >
> >3. See whether it tries to install systemd, either by direct dependency
> >or by an indirect cascade of dependencies.
> >
> >4. If it tries to install systemd by direct dependency, analyze the
> >source and functionality of the package, to determine whether or not
> >there would be a way to get it to do what it needs to do without
> >referencing systemd in a way which would require the dependency.
> >
> >5. If it tries to install systemd by indirect dependency, identify the
> >package in the dependency chain which results in pulling in systemd,
> >and
> >then either:
> >
> >5a. Analyze that package in the same way as under step 4.
> >
> >5b. Analyze the package above that one in the dependency chain to
> >determine whether or not it can be made to do what it needs to do
> >without referencing that package in a way which would require the
> >dependency.
> >
> >5.b.1. If not, repeat step 5b for the next package up the chain, and
> >keep repeating for as many packages are in the chain.
> >
> >6. Repeat from step 2 with another package, until every package has
> >been
> >checked.
> >
> >And all of that is just to identify the packages in question. Modifying
> >them to remove the dependencies would be another nontrivial task in
> >many
> >cases; getting the package maintainer to accept patches which do so
> >would be still another nontrivial task.
> >
> >
> >I did notice when one package which I run on my primary (systemd-free)
> >computer developed an indirect dependency on libpam-systemd (as part of
> >fixing an arguably minor bug in a feature I don't use), reported that
> >as
> >a possible unintended result to the maintainer (asking whether there
> >was
> >any possibility of a way forward which wouldn't require me to build
> >that
> >package locally going forward in order to avoid systemd), and was
> >fortunate enough that the maintainer found an alternative dependency
> >which would avoid the indirect chain to libpam-systemd.
> >
> >But that was something I noticed in the course of checking a routine
> >dist-upgrade, not the result of embarking on a project to analyze the
> >archive in search of such packages - and even then, I was lucky that A:
> >an alternative solution could be found and B: the maintainer was
> >sufficiently non-unsympathetic to the desire to avoid systemd to be
> >willing to look for and implement one.
> >
> >
> >All of which is to say: I am not at all certain that this project would
> >be at all worth the time and effort it would require.
> >
> >But I am not one to tell others not to do work they think is
> >beneficial.
> >
> >--
> > The Wanderer
> >
> >The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> >persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> >progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard
> >Shaw
>
> I found someone who has already done most if not all of this analysis
> and has set up a repo containing non-systemd-using packages. Perhaps
> this can be used as a foundation for something official.
Someone might be motivated if they could find what you are referring to.
--
Brian.
Reply to: