Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr): > Would it make any sense to have systemd with no application > talking to it?
Someone (not me, but someone) might want it as an init system. ;-> (Infamously, the thing aspires to be many more things, but somewhere inside that mess there _is_ an init system: This was the entire point of V.R.'s / The Initfinder General's uselessd proof of concept.) The several init systems I've used such as SysVInit, OpenRC, and runit do not require that 'applications' (services) talk to the init system using glue libraries. In fact, they don't need to talk to the init system at all, unless I'm misremembering something. Somehow, I'm getting the feeling we're communicating at cross-purposes, but I don't understand exactly how that happened. Somehow we got from libsystemd0 to... a discussion I don't entirely understand. Anyhow, I concur with your upthread point that it would be good to know effective and reasonable ways to elminate unwanted library dependencies on a package-managed Linux system. Rebuilding packages to reduce build dependencies is one way, alternative packages with fewer library dependencies is another -- and there may be other ways I'm not currently recalling. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng