The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> writes: > On 11/01/2014 at 10:20 PM, lee wrote: > >> Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> writes: >> >>> Miles Fidelman wrote: > >>>> Right. This sounds more and more like "we're going to rewrite >>>> the rules, and if you don't like it, we're taking our ball and >>>> going home." >>> >>> Various people have tried to explain how a binary distribution >>> like Debian works (build packages with all options included by >>> defauls) and how shared libraries work on Linux (all the libraries >>> need to be there to satisfy symbol resolution at run time, even if >>> none of the code is ever used). When those explanations fell on >>> deaf ears, people have resorted to analogy. That was clearly a >>> waste of time too. >> >> Appreciating and understanding an explanation doesn't mean that >> someone who appreciates the explanation and understands it comes to >> the same conclusions or opinions about what has been explained. >> >> Your car manufacturer and the sales people can give you all kinds of >> explanations about why you'd be forced to never take off the trailer >> and keep telling you that the rules demand it to remain hooked up all >> the time. That doesn't mean that you like the idea or that you would >> buy the car. > > One difference is that these are not invented or imposed "rules"; they > are an essential and pretty-much inherently unavoidable part of the way > dynamic-shared-library software *works*.
You're looking at it from a technical point and find things are working correctly. This technical point isn't really what I'm concerned about. I'm merely saying that it is going too far when you need to have a (systemd) library installed only to tell software X that something (systemd) isn't running, which leads to software X depending on something (systemd) you don't even have installed. Call it bad design if you like. Even when something works fine, that doesn't mean that the design of it is any good. To get an overall sane and decent outcome, you need to consider a lot more than whether something is technically working or not. The car with the mandatory trailer from the analogy is technically working fine. You're wondering why nobody buys it. For potential buyers, it's very obvious why don't buy it. They /expect/ it to work technically fine, like every other new car they consider buying, so this point is rather irrelevant. It's more releavant to them, for example, that they can park in their garage, which they can't because the trailer doesn't fit. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- 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/871tpl2x86....@gulltop.yagibdah.de
