[Arm-netbook] systemd nonsense ad-infinitum

[zap]

> 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.