> I'm not sure what you're expecting me to say. > > I pay attention to the uploads. > > I've been a Debian Developer for over 2 decades. > > I was there since before all this started on the mailing lists. > > I'm vaguely aware of the extent to which things depend on things. > > Actually, let's try a very rough estimate on "stretch" (the new release): > > for p in systemd libsystemd0 libselinux1 libc6 ; \ > do apt-cache rdepends \ > --no-suggests --no-conflicts --no-breaks --no-replaces $p \ > | grep '^ ' | sort -u | wc -l ; \ > done > 34 > 144 > 133 > 19816 > > Note that libselinux1 (which is pretty much equivalent to libsystemd0 in > its purpose) is almost as widely depended upon as libsystemd0, and that > they are both two orders of magnitude less depended upon than libc6. > > _That_ is why I reacted badly to your "forced to require" assertion. > > I'll admit that there are recursive dependencies that spread that net > quite a lot wider, but also those numbers include the likes of sogo > where the dependency is: > > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.14), libcurl3-gnutls (>= 7.16.2), libgcc1 (>= > 1:3.0), libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.14.0), libgnustep-base1.24 (>= 1.24.7), > libgnutls30 (>= 3.5.0), liblasso3 (>= 2.5.0), libmemcached11, libobjc4 > (>= 4.6), libsbjson2.3, libsope1 (>= 3.2.6), init-system-helpers (>= > 1.18~), tmpreaper | systemd, sogo-common (= 3.2.6-2), adduser, zip, > lsb-base (>= 3.0-6) > > so here systemd is depended upon only as an alternative to tmpreaper. > > If you want better numbers, feel free to work them out yourself, but I'd > hope that you'll manage to understand from this that there has not been > a policy change to "force" packages to "require" (or as we'd call it > "depend") upon systemd, or even libsystemd0. > > Oh, and not that it matters, as I wasn't there when the Debian Technical > Committee made its decision to choose systemd as the default, but I > would have made the same decision if I had been on the committee then, > and these days I am: > > https://www.debian.org/intro/organization#tech-ctte > > so, if that doesn't qualify me to comment on happenings in Debian in > your eyes, I'm not quite sure what would. > > Cheers, Phil. Well, it least you were more civil about it. I do think that openrc or runit should have at least been on the table for a vote. Although, I am curious why you think that runit-init is no longer a package on debian. I am curious to why that package was taken down. I will stick to devuan though and you I am sure will stick to debian. That's about it.
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
