Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> writes: [...]
>> Systemd is vendor lock-in and there is no other way to explain it when >> "apache2-common" cannot be installed due to libsystemd0 dependency. > > Ah, _libsystemd0_. Thanks for the clarification. You were not talking > about a dependency that resolves to package systemd, but rather one that > resovles to package libsystemd0. > > Well, then, that clarifies things. We can now agree to disagree about > an almost certainly functionally meaningless package dependency on > libsystemd0 equating to a system being chained to system, and thus a > qualifying example of 'the tentacular and insidious reach of systemd'. > Quoting my page: > > A few things such as bsdutils and util-linux have started to depend on > libsystemd0, but that seems entirely harmless. I respect the developers > behind Devuan, and know they have done & are doing a great deal more > than just omitting systemd, but it seems to me that there was a lot of > hyperventilating over mere presence of a lib that's doing zero harm just > sitting there. The purpose of libsystemd0 is to enable packages whose code has been 'enhanced' with spurious systemd depedencies to work on systemd-less systems. That's absolutely not harmless. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
