On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:15:17PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:08:47PM +0200, info at smallinnovations dot nl wrote:
...
...
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> I fail to see the importance of such task, since I really don't
> understand what are these things that all init systems have in common,
> except for riping orphaned processes. But again, if you feel like
> having a library for all init systems to share is something worth
> doing, please do it.

The point is that that proposed libsystemd0 would *not* be an init 
system,    and it would still enable software that was written to use 
systemd to run flawlessly.

But I have to agree that writing such a thing is infeasible because the
so-called systemd cabal can change the specs faster than anyone can do
the reverse engineering. And it will take reverse engineering, because
the specs aren't sufficient.

I use the term "strategic incompetence" for the organisations that
produce such system(d)s.


-- hendrik