John Hughes <[email protected]> writes: > On 18/12/15 15:50, Mitt Green wrote: >>> It's a library whose sole purpose is to make sure that >>> packages *don't* depend on >>> systemd. >> So, you are saying that libsystemd0 is harmless and it >> doesn't mean anything unless you install systemd, systemd-sysv and so on? > > Exactly.
*If* libsystemd0 is structured as you claimed it was (I didn't check this), it's nothing but a second (and presumably somewhat sub-par) implementation of a set of systemd defined APIs which sits in a shared library (very likely written by the systemd developers, as it's part of the same source package as systemd) and some runtime switching code which either uses the facilities of identifiable systemd-programs or falls back to the library reimplementation in case these aren't available. It's purpose would be to enable applications depending on systemd-facilities to work on systems which apparently don't have it installed by providing a second systemd implementation in another file, IOW, the 'preferred programming interface' of such a system is whatever the systemd developers decided it should be and this interface is implemented by code which is part of systemd. But when the systemd developers effectively control both the API definition and the API implementation, the question whether or not such a system is actually running systemd becomes largely academic: It's a systemd system, just possibly one using a different way of managing processes. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
