richard lucassen <mailinglists@???> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:09:53 -0500 Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> wrote:

[...]

> A thing that remains, as you pointed out in your other post: was
> systemd inserted by Debian or by the original developers?

That's another question I already answered and since Mr Lucasson likes
to label me as "conspiracy theorist", I suggest that whoever doubts the
following checks the Debian diff.gz himself.

"Systemd support" is an optional feature of the upstream code. It's
enabled by default for Debian package builds for Linux (but not Hurd of
kFreeBSD) because the package maintainer has chosen to enable it by
default.

[...]

> I'd rather go for a, like Tobias suggested, a libsystemd telling
> the package that is linked against, that it runs on a non-systemd
> system.

As I also already wrote: libsystemd is an alternate implementation of a
set of systemd-provided APIs (One guy who posted here claimed it would
provide the same features in a different way, another that it wouldn't
do anything. I have no interest in checking this myself because it can
change at any time and even an API implementation which "does nothing"
is an alternate implementation, just a seriously sub-par one). Further,
this implementation is provided by the systemd project (same source
package). Hence, someone using that gets a system whose API is
controlled (both at the specifiation and at the implementation level) by
the systemd project. At best, this is a functionally somewhat limited
systemd system.

[...]

> And yes, there is "systemd" in the name. Sorry for that ;-)

The situation wouldn't be different if it was called
libhubertusblume-from-hell instead. Were I generally inclined to believe
that people act intelligently (and I'm certainly not), I'd assume the
name was chosen intentionally to provide another cheap way of labelling
people with different opinions as nutjobs with a justifcation people who
aren't familiar with "programming" are unlikely to be capable of seeing
through.