3 ms·
Neither, of course, is saying, 'we will permit packages to fail to work with any init system other than systemd.'
by wtbob 12y ago
Neither, of course, is saying, 'we will permit packages to fail to work with any init system other than systemd.'
- Xylakant 12y agowhy not? If a package leverages functionality that only systemd provides and users want to have install package, they have to bite that bullet and install systemd. What are the alternatives? You can't force the upstream or the package maintainer to invest the extra work to make the package work without systemd, you're not providing the required work either and you certainly don't want the user to be on the loosing side because you don't like systemd.
- lmm 12y ago> you certainly don't want the user to be on the loosing[sic] side because you don't like systemd. Debian has a long and glorious tradition of standing on principle to the user's (at least short-term) detriment. Look at the way they used to ship KDE programs (especially in the days before GPLed Qt), or the way they still package tomcat, or their approach to multimedia codecs.
- teddyh 12y agoWhy not? This thing here, where a package fails to work without another specific package, is called a dependency, and that is is the normal way to do things. Just because you don’t like package A does not allow you to “compromise” by allowing A but not allowing B, C or D to have a dependency on A.