Quoting dev (devuan.2@???):
> On 07/26/2016 04:26 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> >libsystemd0's status as a bundle of interface code that does nothing in
> >the absence of systemd is not because it's a library -- obviously -- but
> >rather because all it _contains_ is interface code that does nothing in
> >the absence of systemd
>
> Well now, if that were true, it would not need to be there at all
> and the apache common lib could be installed without needing that
> systemd dependency. Correct?


I notice you're not citing specific package names and dependencies.
Forgive an old cynic, but this means you're not bothering to gather data
and check facts, right? Because that's for other people?

So, instead, you post vague rhetorical questions about 'the apache
common lib', not bothering to say what you're talking about, and
checking nothing. And you expect me to spend time on this.

Well, maybe I'm bored or a masochist, but I'll spend time on it. ;->


I was just looking up the matter. There was previously a package in
Debian 8 'Jessie' called apache2-common that had an apparently spurious
build dependency on library package libsystemd0. It got replaced by
tranaitional package apache2.2-common
(https://packages.debian.org/jessie/apache2.2-common), which then went
away as part of the transition to Apache httpd 2.4.

In a quick check through the dependency chains of current package
'apache2' (Apache httpd 2.4), I no longer see any chain that resolves to
libsystemd0. I could have missed it, but... well, hold on. Easy to
check that. On my Debian 8 'Jessie' test VM, doing 'apt-cache
--no-pre-depends --no-recommends --no-suggests --no-conflicts
--no-breaks --no-replaces --no-enhances rdepends libsystemd0' returns a
list of 126 packages that no longer include any part of Apache2 httpd.

If you want, I can send that output to Pastebin for you to use in your
{COUGH} careful research {COUGH}.


Let's talk about the previous package apache2-common, which is what I
believe your lazy hand-wave probably was intending to talk about. It
had an pointless library dependency on libsystemd0. Certainly _if_ you
were to recompile/rebuild former package apache2-common to eliminate
that dependency, then it would have been installable without dragging in
libsystemd0.

By the way, did you notice that your largely incoherent question appears
to make the non-sequitur conclusion that _because_ the former
apache2-common package required libsystemd0 as a dependency, that made
it incorrect to assert (as I did) that libsystemd0 is interface code
that does nothing in the absence of systemd? Probably not.


> It seems I cannot have a functioning Apache system on Debian 8
> without installing at least some minimal facet of systemd and that's
> problematic if not for any other reason than simply being an
> unnecesary dependency.

It _was_ indeed an unnecessary build dependency. My quick check
suggests the package maintainers made it go away, for whatever that's
worth. Of course, there are quite a few others that also have it. I
agree that it's 'problematic' in the sense that I'd rather not have it
on my systems, but it's not of particular importance.

> What this all really illustrates is the
> insidious nature of systemd assimilation and how far things have
> gone, and how far they will continue to go.

No, what it illustrates is that many packages have overly broad and
in many cases pointless library and other dependencies. This is a
_general_ problem, and I have been collecting techniques to deal with
it, and documenting them. Something tells me I'll get no help from you,
as all you've offered is lazy handwaves and time-wasting advocacy rhetoric.