Quoting Simon Hobson (linux@???):

> OK, to start with, "sysadmin" is only a small part of ${dayjob} - so
> many things which full time admins may consider "simple" are not thing
> that I've ever had the time (and generally need) to deal with. I've
> never claimed to be a particularly experienced admin, even if my
> colleagues consider me some sort of guru (everything is relative).

I'm sure you're fine.

The point is, though, there are some quite simple aspects of running any
deb-based system, including ones I mentioned at least in passing in my
OpenRC Conversion essay, that I hope you will find useful in, among
other things (as the subheader puts it), 'Overcoming Dependency
Obstacles'.

If you'd rather not, that's fine by me, but I notice that just
complaining on mailing lists has done rather little, and maybe some,
y'know, work using fairly basic Linux technology might do more.

> But the main thing is, a big part of using a packaged system is to
> make things "simpler".

So, complain on mailing lists, then? ;->



> The moment anyone starts building custom packages then you've tossed a
> live grenade in the system with a tripwire on the pin.

'Building custom packages' is a rather inventively melodramatic
exaggeration of auto-rebuilding a .deb with one spurious lib dependency
disabled, and the 'live grenade' imagery in that specific context is
patently ridiculous.

But hey, if you'd rather sit on your tochis and wait for someone else to
do it for you, I'll not deter you.


> I did look at equivs - but the information (or links) presented to me
> then implied something very different to the "simple" stuff that's
> been presented (IIRC) in this thread.

Your phrase 'the information (or links) presented to me' is
meaninglessly vague. Some people here seem to do that a lot, I notice.

http://shallowsky.com/blog/linux/install/blocking-deb-dependencies.html
walks through a specific case, and is pretty much by the numbers. I
have no idea what you looked at, but either you didn't bother to start
with the above (which is the link from my essay), or you have IMO rather
extreme hopes and expectations. With which, I will hasten to add, I
would still wish you all the best.


> Then (from what I vaguely recall reading) I was under the impression
> that equivs involved more than just a "pretend that this package is
> installed" instruction to apt as the recent reference here suggested
> to me. But from empirical observation, just telling apt to "pretend
> libsystemd0 is installed even though it isn't" won't work when the
> program "blows up" during startup when the linker can't open a library
> it's been told is needed by this program.

The upstream ClamAV developer _asserted_ that exactly that would work.
So, was he correct in so saying, or was he incorrect? Did it ever
occur to you to check? No? Why not? Allergic to empiricism? Broken
thumbs? Highly selective phobias? Cat dragged off your computer?

Personally, in your shoes -- if I had an irrational paranoia about
libsystemd0, which I currently do not -- I would want to know. Wanting
to know, I would indulge my personal affection for empiricism. E.g.,
when the relevant question is 'Is $FOO true?', I would investigate $FOO.

If the upstream ClamAV developer's assertion is incorrect, then the
other (rather obvious, I thought) trick I mentioned would be extremely
likely to suffice in its place.

But I'm getting the vibes that you are uninterested in 'overcoming
dependency obstacles' through local system administration. You'd rather
that someone else solves your problem.

I understand. I'd like someone else to solve _my_ problems, too. And
I'd also like a Caterham, by the way. (British Racing Green, like
Patrick McGoohan's Lotus Super 7. One of the ones with a Ford Zetec
1.4L engine is perfectly fine. Right-hand drive is also fine; I'll
sweet-talk the automotive grand panjandrums into letting me use it.)


> So look at it from my PoV.

When I'm done looking at it from my own, sure. You might have to wait a
few decades, though. I believe I still have some miles left on my
warranty. ;->

Looking at it from my own, I see that I've documented ways to deal
overcome dependency obstacles, but you don't want to do them. Fair
dinkum, as the Aussies say. You aren't obliged. But I _did_ provide
them.



> Incidentally, after the exchange referred to, someone contacted me
> offlist with the comment "if that's the customer service department,
> I'd hate to see the complaints department" - so it would appear at one
> other person sees my PoV.

That was on-list. It's about four posts down the archived thread.
Whose link I provided.