Hi Ondřej, Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> writes: > and if I match this with the table at: > http://people.debian.org/~stapelberg/docs/systemd-dependencies.html I get > the result that you will _not_ compile systemd with: > > libselinux.so > libpam.so > libwrap.so > libaudit.so > libkmod.so > > because they are marked as optional in the table. I’m sorry that this is unclear. I updated the document, saying:
Whether compiling systemd without this dependency is supported by upstream. This does not automatically mean that Debian choses to make these parts optional. To further expand on this: It was my impression that people thought systemd had _hard_ dependencies on many parts when that actually isn’t true. In particular, this was used as an argument against using systemd on embedded devices. While I happily use systemd on devices such as the Raspberry Pi, I can understand that other people might have stricter constraints on binary sizes. Therefore, they could recompile the systemd package if they can live without a few features. In case demand is high enough and there is somebody who volunteers to maintain such a package, we would be open to talk about having a systemd-light package which is specfically targeted on such devices. It’d probably make sense to maintain this as part of one of the embedded spins we have, e.g. Emdebian — but I am not very familiar with those and their current state. But, to be very clear, I certainly don’t see the need to strip down systemd in Debian for the general use case (including embedded devices and servers). That is energy which could be much better spent elsewhere. -- Best regards, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/x68v2gzhw8....@midna.zekjur.net
