-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 01:47:51AM +0000, 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?
David, I understand your concerns. I, myself don't like systemd. But *if* you actually want something changed, you'll have to pick up some legwork yourself, like, for example, understand what libsystemd is actually doing in some package of your choice. But first of all, you'll have to accept that there are folks out there (who are at least as smart as you and me) who do like systemd, and that packagers want to cater to those folks as well. So if some binary wants to be able to work with systemd when it's there, perhaps linking against libsystemd is the right thing to do. A package maintainer won't keep around two versions of her package, one compiled against libsystemd and another without it. Especially because that doesn't scale well: someone might not like libdbus, someone else quibbles about libselinux -- and we are already at eight binary versions for one executable. Sometimes binary distributions do have a cost, convenient as they are. If "no systemd" purism is your thing, there's Devuan. There are pretty smart folks over there too. Cheers - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlrv5/wACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZHRgCfYfgo6yH27+Sx2vrjqTvhl8Se zEsAn1dREi1BAYyI4VIs0aWWfm9gv1HT =wL3v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
