At Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:13:31 +0100, Wookey wrote: > > +++ Lars Wirzenius [2014-07-01 18:34 +0100]: > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > You get a choice of 'prevent-systemd' which stops it running as init > > > but allows the -shim and libpam packages so that logind and the like > > > will work. Or 'systemd-must-die' which conflicts with everything > > > systemdish. > > > > Wookey, > > > > Please rename the systemd-must-die package to something neutral. Thank > > you. > > OK. I did rename the source package, but I liked the binary and thought > anyone else who actually wanted this would enjoy it too, so it seemed > appropriate despite not being entirely 'PC'. > > I think some people are failing to see the humour in this name > (and Dawkins knows we could use some humour round this subject), but I > guess if it's not going to be allowed then it's not going to be > allowed.
Yes, I also completely fail to see the humour, especially in the light of other remarks made on this list by the author of the systemd-must-die package[0]. I just can't stop making the connection between the statement that systemd *must* die and that suggestion... [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/05/msg00585.html -- 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/871tu455ze.wl%jer...@dekkers.ch
