----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Wanderer" <wande...@fastmail.fm> > > On 09/03/2014 at 11:41 AM, Bzzzz wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 11:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Rob Owens <row...@ptd.net> > > wrote: > > > >> I'd also like to know if there are any features of brasero that > >> *really* require systemd to be used as the init system -- > >> features that would not work with sysvinit. I'm hoping Michael > >> or some other developers can chime in on this one. > > > > This doesn't work like that; it is a _chain_ of dependencies. > > Which is in fact part of the problem: it results in something which does > not have anything to do with a particular init system "depending on" > that init system.
Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say. I can't imagine that brasero really needs functionality provided by one particular init system, but I want to be open to the idea that it may. So far, though, the only needs that have been brought up are essentially "brasero needs X functionality, which can be found in package W. Package W also provides Y functionality, which depends on systemd-sysv. So therefore brasero depends on systemd-sysv, even though it doesn't *need* it." Sound about right? It gives me a better understanding of why the principle of "do one thing and do it well" is important. I thought it was about producing good code. Now I understand that it also reduces this kind of "entanglement". While systemd-shim is currently an option, I'd still like to open a bug(s) on the packages responsible for the entanglement. Get the problem fixed at its root. But I'm going to try and learn as much as I can from this thread before reporting any bugs. I want to be able to make educated suggestions for improvement. -Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2114488629.1395185.1409768808659.javamail.zim...@ptd.net
