Steve Litt <slitt@???> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:39:26 +0100
> John Hughes <john@???> wrote:
>
>> On 18/12/15 17:18, Mitt Green wrote:
>> >
>> > No, the actual work on packages that remove libsystemd0 dependency.
>> > I've done quite of it for my machine. Notable examples include
>> > angband repositories apart from Devuan's own. Adam made a big
>> > base removing the dependency.
>>
>> But why? What badness does libsystemd0 do?
>
> I don't know.
>
> Here's what I do know. Before 12/18/2015 (today), not one single email
> from "John Hughes" has been posted to dng@???. Today
> (12/18/2015), there have been 10 (and counting) "John Hughes" emails,
> most of which tended to say "libsystemd0 isn't that bad",

Assuming systemd is regarded as 'bad' (the term all kinds of
connotations I'd rather avoid in this context), then, libsystemd0 is the
very rotten heart of the badness[*] as it's the glue code enabling
applications to be modified such that they depend on systemd APIs
despite the implementation which is part of the "process-list visible
systemd" can't be used. Instead, an alternate implementation of the
systemd facilities more well-hidden in a shared library will be
supplanted.

[*] Jospeh Conrad allusion entirely intentional.