Quoting Rainer Weikusat (rweikusat@???):

> Rick Moen <rick@???> writes:
> > Quoting Rainer Weikusat (rweikusat@???):
> >
> >> To re-iterate this:
> >
> > [more very strangely worded, difficult-to-parse prose, seemingly alleging
> > that library libsystemd0 can be used to insert 'calls' into unrelated
> > applications -- which assertion in my view does not seem correct, if I
> > am parsing this odd claim correctly]
> >
> >> I honestly understand why stating this as it is causes hostile
> >> reactions.
> >
> > I cannot recall having said anything hostile to you,
>
> Replacing
>

>     Because of libsystemd, a systemd sub-project, technically
>     gratuitious calls to systemd-specific functions
>     can be inserted into unrelated applications. [as it provides the
>     required symbols]

>

> with        

>

>     libsystemd can be used to insert 'calls' into unrelated
>     applications

>
> won't win you any prices for objectivity.
>
> But this kind of 'discussion' is as tiresome as it is useless.

Rainer, I did not, and do not, understand how the mere presence of
libsystemd0 can insert 'calls to systemd-specific functions'
into related applications.

I _also_ did not understand what your phrase 'systemd-specific
functions' refers to in this context. Are you referring to the
interface glue code in libsystemd0? If so, given that, AFAIK, it
doesn't actually do anything in the absence of systemd, what is the
importance, the real-world significance of those functions? What are
they going to -do- on a systemd-less system, and how, by what means, are
they going to do it?

I said upthread that I was not following what you were saying, and would
appreciate a specific example because I really didn't understand this
overly abstract and non-specific discussion. I apologised for probably
being obtuse on this matter, and for my preference for concrete specifics
when things seem suspiciously vague. You then seemed to accuse me of
bad faith, and I said, well, maybe this conversation is doomed and we'd
have better luck on some other conversation on a different occasion.

Now, you're coming back and saying I lack objectivity. Maybe so -- or
maybe I just didn't fully understand a very strangely worded and
somewhat vague passage. And maybe I need more coffee.

Or maybe this conversation is doomed and we'd have better luck on some
other conversation on a different occasion -- which is what I strongly
suspect.

Anyway, if you wish to be more clear and specific, that would be perhaps
useful and I would read what you say with interest. I don't promise to
comment, because my recent experience attempting to engage with you has
been frustrating and rather unpleasant, and my masochism has limits.