On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Marty wrote: > Could they have instead made the library call a no-op if systemd is > installed, instead of requiring the new dependency?
No. The way shared libraries work is that the symbols must be resolved at start up (or at dlopen()). Furthermore, even if you were to use dlopen(), if the systemd library changes soname, you'd still need a dependency or you'd potentially have breakage. > For those, the risk of using the old hack should be weighed against > the risk of a new, complex, and relatively untested solution, relative > to its size. Should the user be able to decide that? Having the user decide that is complex, and would require allowing the user to rebuild whole swaths of packages with different dependencies. You can do that even in Debian, but not without a great deal of work, and it's not something that we're going to support for such a trivial set of libraries. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Identical parts aren't. -- Beach's Law -- 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/20141029154638.ge27...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
