Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Andy,
Thank you for the email.
<< You can currently use Debian without systemd as long as no package you use depends on systemd. >>
That "depends on systemd" hook is a primary objection for those of us who know better. Why should a non-init package depend on a particular init system?
Only systemd initialization-related packages should depend on systemd.
Non-systemd packages currently depend on systemd due to the direct efforts of systemd supporters. Lennart Poettering himself is pushing to get packages dependent on systemd: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00427.html
The reason why Mr. Pottering resorts to such tactics is because:
1. locking packages upstream FORCES the use of systemd by anyone wanting to use that package;
2. systemd would surely fall flat on its face, were it to attempt to advance on merit alone.
Sorry, but such unscrupulous manipulation has to stop before things get out of hand. I want to install that unnecessarily systemd-dependent package on my non-systemd machine!
<< systemd is not Essential level of priority in Debian. >>
Debian's major (and contentious) switch to systemd indicates otherwise.
<< There are no plans by Debian to change that fact.
See http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html for example. >>
Thank you for the link. I love this line from the page:
***"However, notice that there are some programs such as login managers (e.g. gdm3) which have an upstream dependency on systemd. gdm3 links against libsystemd0 and depends on libpam-systemd; and the latter depends on systemd-sysv | systemd-shim
SO IT IS IN FACT A SOFTWARE SUCH AS GNOME THAT IS PULLING SYSTEMD ONTO YOUR COMPUTER."***
However, the above linked post from Lennart Poettering proves that it was he who initiated Gnome's dependency on systemd.
So, on the one hand, the systemd apologists are implying that it is not systemd's fault that upstream software depends on it, while, on the other hand, the systemd supporters are pushing for such upstream dependencies on systemd. That's a slimy, two-faced approach.
Those of us not who are not sold on systemd can only assume that the amount of effort that the systemd camp puts into such connivances is inversely related to the amount of effort that they put into proper coding.
Also, given the prevalence of such deception above, how can we trust anything that comes from the systemd supporters (including systemd itself)?
In regards to steps that your linked page suggests, anything can be hacked (except, perhaps, a non-systemd package's dependency on systemd/pid 1). I can run Debian packages on Slackware, Gentoo, Arch, etc.
However, I and many, many others don't want to bother with such rigmarole.
I'll tell you what -- why don't we go back SysV init as the Debian default, and then, the systemd users can take steps such as those proposed on your linked site.
Don't like that proposal, do you? You be the one to have to do extra work to set-up and maintain your init system. Furthermore, you would probably lose those precious upstream dependencies on systemd, as the upstream developers would have to remove them, given that the major players (Red Hat/Arch, Debian, Slackware, etc.) are using various init systems.
And again, if I were to follow the instructions on your linked page, how do I run that systemd-dependent package on my non-systemd machine?
Regards,
-DM
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:55:42AM -0700, ss-composer@marks.org wrote:
> > In fleeing systemd, I have left Debian and am currently running Slackware. I won't use Debian again, unless I can do so without systemd.
>
> You can currently use Debian without systemd as long as no package
> you use depends on systemd. systemd is not Essential level of
> priority in Debian. There are no plans by Debian to change that fact.
>
> See
> http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html
> for example.
>
> Spreading the idea that Debian is forcing you to use systemd is
> spreading falsehoods.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> --
> http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Reply to: