Quoting Simon Hobson (linux@???):

> That's the point - I never suggested it didn't. But it doesn't work
> for me - as in that's not a route I'm happy taking in order to deal
> with it.

I wouldn't dream of arguing against people's likes.

> Thank you for that link, I was aware of the equivs feature, but it's
> not something I've used. But, for testing it can be simulated by just
> over-riding dependencies, as in dpkg --force-depends -r libsystemd0
> And hey presto, the package causing me problems would fail to start -
> needless to say, when it calls a function in that library the call
> fails.

That indeed removes it, but the point is that an equivs entry tells the
package system it's installed, even if it isn't.

You were saying it's not good enough for libsytemd0 to be present at
all, not even with a cron job ensuring it has 000 permissions every
night, and possibly not even with the binary file set immutable using
'chattr +i': Well, using an equivs entry, instead, should suffice to
satisfy that objection. In that case, you can removed the lib entirely
(using force options as you suggest), and the equivs entry makes apt lie
to itself with the aim of ensuring that the lib never gets reinstalled.

> > Duct tape is cool.
>
> Over here, the common term is gaffer tape.

I last lived in Blighty during Ted Heath's administration (Trinity
Church Square, Southwark), so I'm rather outmoded, but my understanding
was that backing and adhesive differs between the two types.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18499183