On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 01:53:52AM -0500, Plasma wrote:
> Originally from IRC:
>
> ```
> <plasma41> fsmithred rrq: I have come to a conclusion as to why
> libsystemd0 is included in a Debian bootstrap.
> <plasma41> In Debian both the packages util-linux and bsdutils (both of
> which come from src:util-linux, btw) are classified as Essential and
> both depend on libsystemd0 (which is not Essential, but gets pulled in
> as a dependency).
> <plasma41> Devuan has forked versions of both of these packages with
> the libsystemd0 dependency removed.
> <plasma41> Unless there is something else depending on libsystemd0
> there is no need to include it in the list of packages for a minbase
> install.

Yes, very unfortunately APT. See #355.

amesser has a libsystemd0 free fork of APT that I think we should consider
including in ceres/chimaera.

> <plasma41> Furthermore, I propose we add libsystemd0 to the banned
> packages list. Anywhere libelogind0 is unable to satisfy a dependency
> on libsystemd0 should be considered a bug.
> ```
>
> It's possible a transitional dummy package would be required for
> seamless upgrades to Beowulf. I'm not sure.

I am not sure this will work as it stands. It certainly doesn't work for
beowulf: rrq tried it and the installer fails because it doesn't use apt/dpkg to
resolve package dependencies and therefore doesn't realise libelogind0 provides
libsystemd0 (Ralph, have I remembered that correctly?)

I am also not sure it will work for ceres/chimaera because it will render source
pacakges unbuildable. Some pacakges built by Debian which we use directly have a
build dependency on libsystemd-dev which itself depends on libsystemd0. If we
ban libsystemd0 all those Debian packages will be unbuildable on Devuan. That
doesn't seem right.

I think the only way to remove libsystemd0 completely is to fork all the
packages (which I am not proposing!).

Mark