On 07/13/2016 01:14 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> 'dev' wrote:
>
>> > You can pin all you want, and force-remove all you want, but
>> > one day there will be a package you need (let's pretend it's
>> > linux-libc-dev-xxx.x.x) which will have the hinge-pin baked-in. You
>> > can no longer update libc.

> Really? The GNU libc package is going to suffer a dependency chain that
> requires package systemd?

Sure, why not? Poettering and Sievers want systemd in the kernel so why
stop when there's an entire distribution to mess up? Quite sad that it
had to be Debian; SCO would have been a much better fit especially
considering the Microsoft backing and the general dbaggery of SCO
leadership.

Glibc is just an example but the apache common package dependence is
real. It's been specifically compiled with a systemd dependency simply
to make the software inoperable when libsystemd0 has been removed. There
is no reason to have that library compiled into that package and you
know that.

All things considered, If the only choice left were Debian I would
likely switch to Windows. Far fewer bugs and less... systemDuctape.