On 19/12/15 10:21, John Hughes wrote:
> 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.

I will give you a good reason why systemd is bad, if you try to remove
it from debian, it also removes your desktop etc.

>
>> 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.

Why?, Linux worked very well before 'logind' appeared.

Now please go away, Troll

Rowland

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