When it comes to building packages, you can always run "rm" with an option against the temporary directory where the packer is targeting to remove any files related to systemd, use sed or patches against existing scripts or import custom scripts and configurations, and then allow the packager to package the bundle without systemd files in the build-package script.

There is no real need for discussing it if it's getting done and being done. You could even excise systemd specifics to their own package separate from the main such as cups-core_package to cups-systemd_meta if Devuan is going to have systemd as optional.

I too do not support these system hijacking packages myself. We all saw what happened with pulseaudio and how it hijacked the audio stack, we don't need systemd doing the same. To be honest, I would be happy if Devuan would be systemd-less and unsupported entirely and banned via the Devuan Constitution. Of course that won't probably happen in the spirit of open-source, but it would be a nice measure to have as an Amendment in and to the Devuan Constitution. This almost sounds like an inkling towards a Devuan Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments, but let's discuss that elsewhere if needed.

-Jim

> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 21:45:59 +0200
> From: kryn@???
> To: aryanto@???; dng@???
> Subject: Re: [Dng] Please stop vain discussion
>
>
> Le 06/05/2015 19:49, Anto a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On 06/05/15 10:23, Didier Kryn wrote:
> >> Dear devuaners,
> >>

> >>     Debatting wether Devuan should allow systemd usage or forbid it 
> >> completely, or wether it should eradicate systemd service files from 
> >> all packages is interesting, but for sure prematurate. Let's discuss 
> >> that when someone proposes to do the job.

> >>

> >>     Up to now nobody has proposed to eradicate those service files 
> >> from all packages except for himself and nobody has proposed to 
> >> package systemd for Devuan. And, as already said, there are more 
> >> important things to do if you have the necessary skills.

> >>

> >>     Please let's stop exchanging flames in vain.

> >>

> >>     Didier

> >
> > Hello Didier,
> >
> > When I started this thread, I genuinely asked technical question
> > related to what I am doing in removing systemd's files from Debian
> > sources of some packages. I am quite sure that I didn't propose or
> > demand that to be implemented in Devuan. I am doing that all solely
> > for myself.
> >
> > But I have to admit that I got emotionally pulled into the discussion
> > about the plan to include systemd into Devuan. Yes, I am quite sure
> > that has been proposed in this thread. That really caught me by
> > surprised.
> >
> > Maybe that proposal was mentioned before and I missed it or I have not
> > yet joined this mailing list. But if you remember, I started the
> > thread
> > https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20150317.200049.9c210008.en.html
> > about 2 months ago. One of my purposes is to understand whether
> > systemd will be included into Devuan or not. I got the impression that
> > it will never happen as everybody seem to agree on that .
> >
> > So I think it is good to have this kind of discussions, even I don't
> > usually contribute due to the lack of my knowledge in the detail bits
> > and pieces of Linux. As it proves that we can have better
> > understanding of what is actually going on behind the scene,
> > especially if the sources came from the core Devuan people.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Anto
>

>      Dear Anto,

>

>      Your question was technical and my answer too but I got the feeling 
> it triggered this very long political discussion. I more or less agree 
> with the two opposed POVs and I remember that almost the same debate 
> happened two or three months ago on practically the same subject.Hence 
> the suggestion to stop it.

>
> Le 06/05/2015 20:47, Nextime a écrit :
> > The official position is: we will support anything that can be packaged without hijacking the whole system to be installed. Actually systemd doesn't match this requirement, so, devuan will not support it as long it doesn't radically change. Anyway we will not intentionally obstacle anyone that eventually want to use it outside officia devuan release.
>

>      Dear Nextime,

>

>      This statement is balanced and sensible. I suggest it be written 
> somewhere on the web site of Devuan, so that when this question arises 
> again, the answer be simply a link to the official statement e basta.

>

>      Kindly yours.
>                              Didier

>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng