On Fri 18 Jul 2014 at 13:19:21 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 07/18/2014 12:56 PM, Slavko wrote: > > > Ahoj, > > > > D??a Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:10:58 +0200 Erwan David <er...@rail.eu.org> > > nap??sal: > > > >> That's quite afalse this... count every package which depends > >> direectly or indirectly on systemd, often without real need... > > > > If you can decide this (i an not able this), please fill bugreport > > about unneeded dependency against this (these) package(s). > > I think (not having done the research to verify this) that the idea is > that some - many? - packages need PAM, and depend (perhaps indirectly) > on an appropriate package for that, but that package now depends > (perhaps indirectly) on libpam-systemd, which depends on 'systemd-sysv | > systemd-shim', which results in systemd-sysv getting installed without > notice, even though the original package didn't need systemd in the > first place. > > The only ways I can see to break this dependency would be to either pull > the needed functionality out of systemd (which apparently is considered > hard enough to not be worth doing, at least by the systemd upstream) or > reverse the order of that '|' dependency, which I believe has been > rejected on the not unreasonable grounds that it would result in not > installing systemd even for people who *don't* care about having it. (As > well as on the grounds that systemd-shim won't continue to provide the > needed functionality for newer systemd versions, unless people update it > in ways that haven't happened yet.)
The objection to 'systemd-shim | systemd-sysv' was on the more objective grounds that systemd-sysv provides the *default* init system. It remains to be seen whether systemd-shim is a dead-end. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/18072014193916.b4a319c76...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
