I really dare any "cabal" to change both the specs and the *clients *in a
way I can't keep up with. There are enough clients.

No real programmer would worry about something like this.

This is getting silly.

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>