On 18-06-17 10:54, Rick Moen wrote:
> 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.
Expanding to that we can even make a libsystemd0 that actually works
with any init system (except systemd) for all relevant init parts and to
all other calls answering that systemd is not present.


Grtz.

Nick