J. Fahrner wrote on 13.02.2018 14:55:
> Am 2018-02-13 13:50, schrieb Irrwahn:
>> That message can safely be ignored.
>> This is caused by the dbus startup from script(s) /etc/X11/Xsession.d/ 
>> .
>> It basically means that dbus did not find systemd upon launch, which is
>> to be expected on a Devuan system that by definition comes w/o systemd.

[ Nota bene: *Every* *single* Devuan installation in existence that has 
  the dbus-x11 package installed will throw this info message. ]
> I know most scripts and config files come from Debian, and the Devuan 
> devs don't want to touch every package containing such systemd 
> directives. But wouldn't it be nice to have a patch-script, which 
> locates all known files containing "systemd" and patches them to remove 
> this systemd stuff after installation?

Please feel free to correct me, but I don't believe it's that simple.
First off, someone would have to locate all these instances, and verify 
it's safe to patch them, and how, and keep that list up to date and 
operational on each iteration of every affected package, all while taking 
into account any possible cross-package side effects. Secondly, that 
script would have to be run after every system upgrade, no matter how 
minor or trivial.

But for the sake of argument let's assume some volunteer (maybe you? :-)) 
stepped up to maintain such a beast: What would be the benefit gained by 
it? Avoiding some benign informational log messages? Sorry, but that 
makes a spurious argument:  If I've received even only the fraction of a 
penny for each bogus message cluttering up ~/.xsession-errors, or any other 
log file for that matter, my only worry in life would be how to defend my 
then-own private island against the rising sea level. ;-)  Or, attacking 
from another angle, if I were to file a bug report for every such incident 
I'd already be blacklisted for flooding the bug trackers.

AIUI(!) it's Devuan's mission to provide an universal operating system 
offering its users as much freedom of choice as _reasonably_ feasible, not 
to eradicate each and every verbatim reference to some specific software 

Heck, going by my observations there isn't ATM even enough manpower to 
strip all affected packages from 'real' dependencies on libsystemd0! (And, 
at least to me, it's not yet crystal clear if in the end that would even 
be desirable - go figure!)

Of course all that 2ct worth drivel reflects just my personal point of view, 
YMMV, and all the other usual disclaimers apply.

HAND, with best regards


Sapere aude!
Dng mailing list

Reply via email to