Quoting Hendrik Boom (hendrik@???):

> Once again, it is a matter of trust, not technical content. Do you
> trust the maintainers of libsystemd0 not to entangle it with unwanted
> systemd-isms? You evidently do. Rainer does not.

I'm certainly willing to consider the possibility that the upstream
coders are evil _and_ the package maintainers are evil _and_ that nobody
I read including the entire brain trust of LWN.net can figure that out
and tell me.

If those two extremely coincidentally evil parties collaborate _and_
everyone completely fails to notice, then I'm indeed in trouble. If
those two extremely coincidentally evil parties collaborate and someone
_does_ notice, then I'll be replacing libsystemd0 with an 'equivs'
recipe about two minutes later.

Incidentally, if both extremely coincidentally evil parties collaborate
and nobody notices, I am probably in trouble on far more significant
matters than libsystemd0, and I'd have extremely just cause to start
getting deeply paranoid about every single one of the...

$ dpkg -l | grep '^ii' | wc -l
685
$

...685 package on my server, all of which would suddenly become very
threatening.

If your point is merely that one ends up bestowing (conditional) trust
onto the developers of all distro packages one runs, that is true but
banal and obvious. If you wish to assert that I have some particular
and pronounced reason I should distrust a distro packager of libssytemd0
_and_ that the entire Linux community would utterly fail to notice this
betrayal, I have yet to hear it, and wait with polite anticipation (but
I'm not holding my breath waiting).

By the way, what specifically does 'entangle it with unwanted
systemd-isms' actually _mean_, and what does that have to do with
whatever-the-heck-it-was that Rainier said? Once again, it seems to me,
there's vagueness in unfortunate parts of this narrative.