Hi Edward,
On 14/01/18 11:09, Edward Bartolo wrote:
On 12/01/2018, Steve Litt<[email protected]> wrote:
I don't think the definitions of free software and open source
anticipated a form of obfuscation so powerful that a simple computer
program couldn't de-obfuscate it. Probably because they didn't
anticipate success to the point where a commercial company would devote
five or ten top notch programmer salaries to creating and maintaining
the obfuscation method.[1]
While I clearly declare that I do not dispute your point about
SystemD's code, your claim that its code is obfuscated, can only be
viewed as an opinion without actual references to its code. You, as a
critic, have also to explain why and how code is obfuscated.
The limited number of times I read, trying to modify, SystemD's code,
there weren't any obvious code obfuscations. The part that I
successfully, compiled and actually used is libsystemd0. I
immediatedly understood that the first part of functions was checking
whether SystemD was installed exiting the function immediately in the
event it wasn't installed. Together with easy to replace functions I
also found other functions that required more thought, but I cannot
say that I found any deliberate code obfuscation.
I investigated my system to find which functions from libsystemd0 were
required for my installation to work using nm and ldd.
I've installed gvfs, udisks2, sane-backends and network-manager in my
system *without* libsystemd0.
But... what's ldd? Synaptic sends me to buildd. By the way, including
the backports in jessie, i can't install mini-buildd :
mini-buildd depends on python-daemon (<2) but 2.1.2-1~bpo8+1 is going to
be installed
... but it has nothing to do with libsystemd0.
Cheers,
Aitor.
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
