Steve Litt <slitt@???> writes:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:59:32 +0100
> Simon Hobson <linux@???> wrote:

[...]

> Bottom line: The perfect is the enemy of the good. To the extent that
> shims can defuse silly, reasonless dependencies, in situations where a
> revised makefile and maybe tiny changes to the C can't do it, shims
> help Devuan continue to promote life without systemd, and hasten the
> day when *everybody* will realize King Lennart has no clothes.

If 'a revised Makefile and tiny changes to the C' can't do it, a systemd
emulator without real functionality almost certainly also can't do
it. And as soon as you start to reimplement systemd, you are using it
and can save yourself the trouble by using the standard implementation
unless you're convinced that your systemd will be a better systemd than
the systemd systemd but since it will still be systemd, you've obviously
accepted its general architecture as sensible.