Indirect dependencies on libsystemd-dev

Thorsten Glaser t.glaser at
Sun Jul 17 20:36:07 BST 2022

On Sun, 17 Jul 2022, The Wanderer wrote:

> filtering it out, or is the list software somehow actually intentionally
> configured to detect when list members are in the addressee list and
> skip sending the list copy? I would consider that latter behavior to be
> actively undesirable; although I dislike receiving multiple copies on a
> routine reply, I would far rather receive multiple copies than not
> receive the copy sent via the list, so that I get those headers and any

Agreed. No idea though. I got it via the list. I’ll trick it:
send to you and the list but you not in the headers.

> although the package containing that file doesn't list a dependency on
> libsystemd0, so there's something else weird there). The question is

Interesting. Contact the package maintainers then.

> (I find it hard to imagine what a MIDI-synthesizer library might need
> which it would want to get from libsystemd0, especially given that it


> I routinely compile things on the host machine for use on the host
> machine, without a package as intermediary; some of them don't have

Then you need something like Gentoo which has USE flags.
In Debian, the -dev packages are superset, batteries included,
because we can rely on the throwaway build chroots so much.

(On the contrary, I use the chroots I have anyway to build
nōn-packaged things as well, because the throwaway feature
and reproducibility is so good.)

> I *very definitely* would *not* want to be limited to working in a
> chroot or the like, or required to write package metadata files, when
> *writing and build-testing my own software*. It's unlikely that I"ll be

I *especially* like to do that. Then I know it’ll work when
packaged for Debian later.

But, see above, this is the concept we’re working with here.

> I interpret your response as boiling down to one or both of "no, there
> isn't likely to be any practical way to get this dependency chain
> broken"

This is true iff the dependency on libsystemd* is indeed correct.
I’d contact the maintainers and ask them first.

> alone". That's disappointing/depressing, in that it's a demonstration of
> how it's still getting harder to avoid systemd, but not an entirely
> surprising outcome.

That it is.

15:41⎜<Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge> Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)

More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list