This was inevitable and expected. I'm not trying to be an "I told you so" but I have mentioned this is a likely scenario before now. It's not the end of the universe, however.
You can: a) patch the affected code. b) Use a shim that provides traps for both services without actually using Systemd. As a consolation, there are projects to provide a more permanent answer to this problem. > Let's hope GNU will keep away from systemd! Imagine GCC, LaTeX or > Emacs depending on it >:o There is no reason for applications to have dependencies on systemd itself. Systemd is an operating system component, not an application interface. Even if some genius decided to try it, it is in the majority interest not to do so. It would require patching the every application every time that systemd was patched. > By the way, I read in this list that Torvalds does not care of > systemd, but did Stallman express any opinion? I personally do not care what Stallman's opinion is, because his views - while perfectly valid ones - do not function in the real world as a whole. If he had his way, Linux would have far fewer drivers and be virtually unusable. Corporate sponsors wouldn't touch it, and the state of everything would probably still be early 90s. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
