Quoting Simon Hobson (linux@???):

> Thanks, a bit heavy going for me at this time in the morning !

Well, if you want to learn the subject, there's an irreducible minimum
of complexity, you know, but it was mostly a citation I gave as an
accuracy cross-check on my ultra-quick extemporaneous description.
I.e., you needn't take my word for this bit; here's a decent write-up.

> OK, that's what I thought, which is at odds with some comments that have been made.

Well, if you're referring to 'comments that have been made' about
libsystemd0, the more useful (IMO) comments characterised what is
actually present in that library, that it contains just interface code
that absent systemd does[1] nothing -- and the way one knows that is to
either read the source code or rely on the characterisations of those
who have. The fallback paranoia position then inevitably gets trotted
out, of 'Yes, but evil nasty upstream in collusion with evil nasty
distro packagers could _in the future_ add code that steals my lunch,
sends my e-mails to the FSB, and opens a subspace channel to V'ger.'

The same is of course possible for the contents of every other Linux
distribution package. And the distro installers. And maybe even the
documentation, etc.

Far be it from me to recommend less paranoia, but I might make the
modest and mild suggestion that unfocussed paranoia wastes time.

Upthread, I quite seriously suggested libsystemd0 package dependency
should have long ago been FAQed, and, fellahs, you really ought to.
This topic should have gotten put to rest years ago, rather than
rehashed over and over.

[1] Someone disputed this characterisation by citing the GNOME gvfs
code in XFCE4 providing or not providing 'drive icons' depending on
whether libsystemd0 is present or not. The poster claimed this was
libsystemd0 'doing something'. To me, it looked like GNOME gvfs 'doing
something', and further proof of GNOME being a fragile dependency
hairball, as if that were needed. But make up your own mind.