Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote:
I think we're arguing in violent agreement - there is more than one way to
approach the issue, more than one attitude to "risk", and what works for one
person isn't necessarily what works for someone else. Isn't that a key tenet of
the FOSS way - the freedom of choice ?
> Well, Works for Me.{™}
That's the point - I never suggested it didn't. But it doesn't work for me - as
in that's not a route I'm happy taking in order to deal with it.
> Can you, with crystal ball, 100% guarantee that I won't deal with my
> system to effectively apply local policy using regular open source
> practices?
And again, you seem to be reading into it things I haven't said. I'm sure
you'll carry on adding more tape as required and achieve the result you want in
a way you are happy with. As I said, that's not a route I'm happy taking. I may
have to if the combination of factors (including my own skill set) conspire to
make it the least bad way to achieve something, but until then I'll be avoiding
it. That doesn't mean I have a problem with you doing that - as you say, it
works for you.
> You probably wouldn't even like removing libsystemd0 entirely and
> replacing it with an 'equivs' recipe, which could also be done if one
> really, really, really were concerned.
>
> But, for those interested in that technique, see: 'How To Satisfy
> Debian Dependencies Without Installing The Stupid Package' on
> http://shallowsky.com/blog/linux/install/blocking-deb-dependencies.html
>
> (You're welcome!)
Thank you for that link, I was aware of the equivs feature, but it's not
something I've used.
But, for testing it can be simulated by just over-riding dependencies, as in
dpkg --force-depends -r libsystemd0
And hey presto, the package causing me problems would fail to start - needless
to say, when it calls a function in that library the call fails.
Now, if the devs/maintainers used a "if it's there call it, if it isn't then
don't" approach then I could see that working. I assume that is a possible way
of calling library functions given the number of programs with optional
dependencies/features. When I raised it with the particular package
maintainers, someone off-list sent me an email saying (of the response I got)
"if that's the support department, I'd hate to see the complaints department" !
> Duct tape, actually. It's like the Force. It has a light side and a
> dark side, and it holds the universe together.
>
> Duct tape is cool.
Over here, the common term is gaffer tape. Duct tape is a common term as well,
and of course the commercial product playing on the homophone (if I go the
right word) with Duck Tape
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
