On 18/12/15 19:40, Steve Litt wrote:
> 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,

Yes I've only been reading the list as a lurker up to now.

> most of which tended to say "libsystemd0 isn't that bad",

I don't think it's that bad, and, despite my asking nobody can tell me
why it is.

> and one of
> which seemed to say that you need remove systemd dependencies only from
> *direct* systemdlib0 dependencies, and not the sub-dependencies, and
> that makes no sense to me at all.

Huh? if a depends on b which depends on c which depends on libsystemd0
then only c needs modification to remove that dependancy, not a or b.

One of the reasons LKCL's post was met with such derision was his claim
that over 4000 packages depended on libsystemd0, when the real number is 74.

>
> But when I hear "John Hughes" post several "libsystemd0 isn't that bad"
> posts on his very first day, well, Mr. Hughes' credibility descends.
> And when his credibility descends, one must consider the possibility
> that he's here only to stir up conflict. It's been tried before, and it
> works very poorly on this list.

I decided to post to the list because it seems to me that you're all
fiddling around with cosmetic parts of the problem (remove libsystemd0,
replace udev and so on) while ignoring the huge steaming elephant turd
in the middle of the room -- logind.

Without a functional replacement for logind then Devuan is doomed.