Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@???> wrote:

> A library can do anything the executable can.

Which is what I thought.
So when someone states that "it's just a library, it doesn't do anything" then that needs taking with a pinch of salt because once anything calls one of it's functions, then that library can do lots of stuff.
"It wouldn't make sense" for a library to do anything when the main system component isn't installed - but don't most of us think that little the systemd guys do makes sense anyway ?

So the point I've been making before is that, even if libsystemd0 "does nothing" now, we can't be complacent that it won't change. Just imagine if a few devs started talking along the lines of "well if systemd isn't installed, doing X is a little harder" - I would not be in the least surprised to find "stuff to do X" getting shifted from "systemd" to libsystemd0. OK, it's not going to be an init system, and I imagine it would be quite hard (or would it ?) to get a well built daemon running, but is there anything to stop them (say) putting all the binary logging stuff in there so devs can use the systemd logging instead of using syslog ?
And thus, the presence of libsystemd0 then allows parts of systemd itself to pervade non-systemd systems.

OK, this many be paranoia - but I'm sure that was said about the threat of systemd when it's inclusion was being considered.