On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 09:15:11PM +0000, t.j.duch...@gmail.com wrote: > > >Then I have no idea about default installation (you can probably look at > >package dependencies to figure it out). But from Debian's current POV, it is > >probably considered an improvement to add systemd components and more > >recent versios of ______ that use them, even if PID1 is still sysvinit. After > >all this is what Ubun7u and Trisquel are doing. > > > > > > Probably. To be clear, I don’t know if that is the case or if they > simply did something else, like rename a package. Either way, I call > it “crap.” You can purge it with no error,
No error when you purge it. I presume you can still log in? And you can still boot? > but aptitude wants to > reinstall it the next time the resolver is run. A later post suggested it may have come in with backports. Would removing backports from sources.lst keep it from coming back? > There is no reason to change to this that I can think of. Without > looking at the code, I’d guess that it is just a bad dependency chain > introduced in the last update - otherwise I couldn’t guess as to what > they were thinking. If it indeed came in with backports, maybe there were users who asked for it to be backported? By the way, is there a good way to find out what other packages might have forced a package to be installed as a dependency (directly or indirectly)? -- hendrik > > To me at least, this incident is just another example of the QA > pitfalls of the traditional “Linux distribution” process. They talk > about stability and maintainability, but the second that that becomes > fashionably inconvenient, they introduce new things into mix even > after “the cake has been baked.” > > Every spec is only kept for as long as it is convenient for the > packager to do so, the user’s actual real world needs play second > fiddle. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
