On 2015-04-15 19:01, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 06:39:29PM +0200, Franco Lanza wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 01:22:28PM +0200, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> > >
> > > systemd-shim is for when you *don't* want systemd.
> >
> > Yes, but cause of you have things that depend on components of systemd.
> > We don't want systemd nor anything depending on components from systemd,

> > so, we don't want the shim too.
> >
> > systemd-shim is for who don't want to have systemd in pid 1 but accept
> > other systemd components. We don't want systemd at all.
>
> Is this really true? Or is systemd to handle components that have
> nothing to do with systemd except that they were, unfortunately,
> developed on a system where they had to use systemd to access system
> services that were formerly, and are elsewhere, handled by other, more
> traditional means?
>
> -- hendrik

Heyo. Wanted to see how things are going.

The main purpose of a systemd-shim is to allow code that depends on systemd
to be compiled and execute cleanly, without having to actually introduce a
binary dependency on systemd. Whether or not that is actually a laudable
goal is the subject of much debate.

>From a user standpoint, it lets them use software that they might not
otherwise have on Devuan.