I really dare any "cabal" to change both the specs and the *clients *in a way I can't keep up with. There are enough clients.
No real programmer would worry about something like this. This is getting silly. On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:15:17PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:08:47PM +0200, info at smallinnovations dot > nl wrote: > ... > ... > > > Expanding to that we can even make a libsystemd0 that actually > works with > > > any init system (except systemd) for all relevant init parts and to all > > > other calls answering that systemd is not present. > > > > > > > > > > I fail to see the importance of such task, since I really don't > > understand what are these things that all init systems have in common, > > except for riping orphaned processes. But again, if you feel like > > having a library for all init systems to share is something worth > > doing, please do it. > > The point is that that proposed libsystemd0 would *not* be an init > system, and it would still enable software that was written to use > systemd to run flawlessly. > > But I have to agree that writing such a thing is infeasible because the > so-called systemd cabal can change the specs faster than anyone can do > the reverse engineering. And it will take reverse engineering, because > the specs aren't sufficient. > > I use the term "strategic incompetence" for the organisations that > produce such system(d)s. > > > -- hendrik > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
