Quoting Bruce Perens (bruce@???):

> It seems to me that expanding on the current libsystemd0 stub so that
> it *actually
> does something *but *is still not systemd *would be a good way to go.

Word. I'd been thinking of suggesting that, but you said it before I
could get around to articulating it.

In prior discussions in this space concerning libsystemd0, there was a
futile confrontation between people who (correctly) pointed out that it
does nothing if systemd isn't present, and others who (correctly)
pointed out that it could be revised to do undesirable things. What
better way to deal with the latter alleged threat than to maintain a
separate libsystemd0 fork (package) managed so it never does anything
other than answer the published library calls and state that systemd
isn't present?

If you-plural object that much to libsystemd0 because future revisions
_could_ do bad things, create a substitute.