On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 09:33:16AM +0900, Simon Walter wrote:

> We were talking about libsystemd0 being a stub.

It's not a stub. There's a bunch of functionality in there. A ton of it.
The elogind porters (who are distinct from Devuan/Debian maintainers) have
ifdef'd out a large amount of stuff, leaving a result that's pretty well
unreadable if you want to actually see what functionality is left. It's
doubtless easier for them to track upstream systemd this way, but it's an
awful mess, beyond the mess that systemd presents on its own, and even for
someone who does code analysis as part of his paid work, it's


> It is too easy to assume you are a troll by the way you edit my email.

Hardly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

> If you can't trust the Devuan devs, then maybe you Devuan is not suitable
> for your uses.

I should say that if you're unaware of who's actually writing your
software, perhaps it's not suitable for your uses. The Devuan developers
didn't write elogind. Regardless, as I noted previously, Unix libraries
group routines by function. There is no logical grouping to describe
libsystemd0. It wants to be another level of libc and this is lazy design.
If one wants a dbus library, one should use a dbus library. If one wants to
manipulate green widgets, one chooses a library that manipulates green
widgets. I'm not sure what a systemd library would accomplish beyond
accessing systemd. In a system lacking systemd, it serves no purpose.


> Why don't you find out who the authors of libsystemd0 are and present
> your concerns to them?

Why in the world would I do that? I don't care about systemd outside of a
work context and I don't wish to have pieces of it running on my systems
without an explicit invitation. I certainly don't want to have it forced
on me, and I can think of no compelling reason why I should accept it.

-- 
Mason Loring Bliss          mason@???          Ewige Blumenkraft!
awake ? sleep : random() & 2 ? dream : sleep; -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I