Refracta Development, Scripts, etc.
Post a reply
dzz

- dzz
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:53 am
- Location: Devon, England

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:14 pm

The way I rebuilt it was first, in a new dir as user, apt-get source util-linux (from sid).
I didn't bother about the build-deps at that stage, when you run dpk-buildpackage it will tell you anyway and list them, before exit with error. You can then install them manually and start again.
In any case, the point here is to remove *systemd* dependency, which must be done manually in debian/control, debian/rules and debian/whatever_else_you_can_see.. grep -r systemd will help.
Some notes:
dpkg-buildpackage failed tests unless run as root
bsdutils deb came out with incorrect deb version number
The debs I built are at the url posted earlier but nothing is tested properly yet. The rebuilt bsdutils seem OK in my installations but a live image boot hangs at "installing knfsd". I don't yet know why or if it is anthing to do with the rebuilt package or some other bug.
It might take a while to debug this. Every time something like this happens I think at first "Why bother, we might fix this but what next? Debian is finito". But I know I'm not the only one who wants choice, whether or not to run systemd and am not yet defeated.
There is another problem with live-boot, it wants to use fstab.d but it has been removed from util-linux (don't yet know which sub-package)
I would suggest putting the last Jessie versions of util-linux packages on hold till this becomes more clear.
I want to know more about libsystemd0 before I can accept it's installation here.. Need someone on the case with better skills than me (shared libs and C) without a vested interest in ramming it down our necks.
nadir

- nadir
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:18 am
- Location: here

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:48 pm

> dzz wrote:
> I want to know more about libsystemd0 before I can accept it's installation here.. Need someone on the case with better skills than me (shared libs and C) without a vested interest in ramming it down our necks.

Same here, i really would like to know about it.
Though, i got to say, after all the mess with systemd the mere name gives me the creeps, no matter what it does.
I used the bsdutils dzz gave above:
http://exegnulinux.net/refracta/experim ... emd.tar.gz
Loads was removed. I then used pinning to avoid further installation of systemd (removed preferences earlier, due to wicd):
Package: "*systemd*"
Pin: release o=Debian
Pin-Priority: -1
~
I installed the removed packages (weird enough including wicd), and am not having systemd.
Didn't reboot yet, so i wouldn't hold my breath.
Guess i would need to hold bsdutils now, huh?
Side note: Not sure what is wrong with me, but to me "dependency" is a pretty clear statement. If software works without smoothing, than it is not a dependency, recommends at best.
dzz

- dzz
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:53 am
- Location: Devon, England

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:44 pm

> Side note: Not sure what is wrong with me, but to me "dependency" is a pretty clear statement. If software works without smoothing, than it is not a dependency, recommends at best.

Look at the source code (while you're at it, note who are the upstream maintainers of util-linux). Even they (so far) allow compilation without systemd. It is Debian who are introducing systemd dependencies even where it is actually optional in the upstream source.
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:06 pm

> dzz wrote:Look at the source code (while you're at it, note who are the upstream maintainers of util-linux). Even they (so far) allow compilation without systemd. It is Debian who are introducing systemd dependencies even where it is actually optional in the upstream source.

That is very disturbing. Maybe it's time to consider a fork rather than trying to fix an increasingly entangled mess.
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:43 pm

FYI. I got a pat on the head and was told those libs aren't the bogeyman. Yeah, right . . .
nadir

- nadir
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:18 am
- Location: here

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:02 pm

Windows isn't the bogeyman neither. Or proprietary software in general.
I mean: as long it doesn't run as PID1 all is dandy, init it?
I am not sure, really not, but i don't think it makes that much sense using Debian if one really wants to avoid systemd *and* libsystemd0 in the long run (neither workarounds nor forks). Might well be enough people will decide on a work, i can't see the future, of course. Than the situation is different (but it sure will take years to mature).
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:04 pm

You might want to check out this project modular-debian: Toward a more modular Debian OS on freelists.org.
Posts like this are over my head (except for the broad brushstrokes) but might give you guys some ideas. Maybe you'll want to join forces?
nadir

- nadir
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:18 am
- Location: here

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:06 am

> dzz wrote:

> > Side note: Not sure what is wrong with me, but to me "dependency" is a pretty clear statement. If software works without smoothing, than it is not a dependency, recommends at best.

> Look at the source code (while you're at it, note who are the upstream maintainers of util-linux). Even they (so far) allow compilation without systemd. It is Debian who are introducing systemd dependencies even where it is actually optional in the upstream source.

Per chance i ran into this:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/20 ... 02290.html
I was not aware of it and don't know if it is fact or not:

> It is an habit in debian to compile the packages with as many options
> as possible as long as it's not adding pile of new dependencies or
> causing issues to the other packages in the archive.

Seems to make sense to me:

> IMHO, if you have the (non-technical?) requirement to not have any
> systemd component on your system, you'll have to either start building
> your own packages ... Or switch to a distribution that allows you to
> select which components are enabled at build time.

Though, if i have to rebuild all kind of packages, i see no point in running a binary distribution (and think he missed the third option: using a binary distro with choices i am happy with).
-
To put it short:
Above i was wrong: What i always liked about Debian i don't like in this case. But as i never complained about that way i got no reason to complain now. They offer comfort and easy use for the user by that. Just that i don't want libsystemd0 is the problem, but this is really mine.
golinux

- golinux
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:23 am

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:19 am

That was in response to a thread I started over there. There was related discussion in another thread. The last sentence sums up the crux of the matter nicely:

> To sum it up: No matter whether you use systemd or not, Debian depends
> on it.

That is soooo twisted (and illogical!).
thwak

- thwak
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:58 am

## Re: Going with the systemd flow . . . or not?

Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:29 pm

> That is soooo twisted

"Twisted" is me LMAO while skimming the modular-debian mailing list postings.
"...propose to introduce discussion of a resolution which can resolve the proposal we've discussed..."
Post a reply
Jump to:

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.

phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.