Author: Tito Date: To: devuan-dev Subject: Re: [devuan-dev] Regarding libsystemd0 in Devuan
On 3/22/20 11:51 AM, Mark Hindley wrote: > 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
> 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.
What if we rename libelogind0 to libsystemd0 with a higher version number
than debian's (same for the dev packages) and make libelogind0 a metapackage
that sucks them in. Would this allow to build the debian packages or are
the libelogind0-dev headers not sufficient to do so?
Just my 2 cents as i'm not a apt/dpkg guru.
> I think the only way to remove libsystemd0 completely is to fork all the
> packages (which I am not proposing!).
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: