Rick Moen <rick@???> writes:

[...]

>> Systemd is vendor lock-in and there is no other way to explain it when
>> "apache2-common" cannot be installed due to libsystemd0 dependency.
>
> Ah, _libsystemd0_. Thanks for the clarification. You were not talking
> about a dependency that resolves to package systemd, but rather one that
> resovles to package libsystemd0.
>
> Well, then, that clarifies things. We can now agree to disagree about
> an almost certainly functionally meaningless package dependency on
> libsystemd0 equating to a system being chained to system, and thus a
> qualifying example of 'the tentacular and insidious reach of systemd'.
> Quoting my page:
>
> A few things such as bsdutils and util-linux have started to depend on
> libsystemd0, but that seems entirely harmless. I respect the developers
> behind Devuan, and know they have done & are doing a great deal more
> than just omitting systemd, but it seems to me that there was a lot of
> hyperventilating over mere presence of a lib that's doing zero harm just
> sitting there.

The purpose of libsystemd0 is to enable packages whose code has been
'enhanced' with spurious systemd depedencies to work on systemd-less
systems. That's absolutely not harmless.