On 06/25/2014 03:59 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 25 juin 2014 à 14:29 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : >> Do you know any other package like systemd, with a non-negligible amount >> of users willing to *not* have it installed, but which is always brought >> back by insidious reverse dependencies? > > “Insidious reverse dependencies”? > > You are insinuating that people are surreptitiously adding dependencies > on systemd components their packages don’t need, just so that they get > installed on your system to piss you off.
No. It's probably not intentional. But the effect is the same. I used the word "Insidious" as I would have use "Stealth", because it's happening slowly, without us noticing, that everything in Debian is being locked with systemd. Soon, we'll have no choice. On 06/25/2014 04:01 PM, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > We have decided to use systemd as the default. Yes. And *only* about the default. Not that systemd should be mandatory. > Any dependency on it cannot be 'insidious'; I also don't think that > the maintainer of the package in question did this with intent to > annoy people who don't like systemd. Ditto: it probably isn't not be intentional, you are right. But the effect is the same. > If you don't like that depencendy, it's your job to offer a patch > which supports an alternative to that maintainer. It's not reasonable to tell I'm responsible for all of this. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53aad63b.6040...@debian.org
