Bug#845480: /bin/ps depends on /usr/lib/... which makes the system unbootable

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Mittwoch, 30. November 2016, 07:46:31 CET schrieb Klaus Ethgen:
> > Also, *if* you want to make this about systemd vs. SysV again:
> Well, systemd, or better the religiosity, systemd is spread, is part of
> this particular problem. Exactly that is the case, why so many users
> oppose systemd.

I fully agree with that. As I pointed out before the fuss about systemd is not 
just technical, it is a social issue with the way upstream receives and reacts 
to any kind of feedback that criticizes the way systemd goes about things.

> However, this should be fight somewhere else. Here we have a real
> problem, that is easily fixable. Look at devuan or debian jessie. Just
> do not link against libsystemd what pulls in too many uncontrollable
> dependencies.

Also agreed to that… libsystemd is almost one third of the size of libc6.so 
here… and it seems upstream basically stuffes *everything* into it, including 
reading process attributes that IMHO would be a task for a *different* shared 
object like the much lighter libprocps.so.6.0.0.

But the discussion would need to be brought upstream, it just seems that these 
days no one dares to do that. I am not keen to subscribe to systemd-devel 
mailing list ever again after my last attempt to channel user feedback to this 
list and having been attacked with "now you are being a dick" by Lennart 
personally who on the other side rightfully complained about being attacked in 
person himself. (I unsubscribed from debian-devel mailing list back then for 
similar reasons.)

There is a split in the community that has never been healed, people just try 
to ignore it, but I doubt that this bug report would be the right place to go 
about this. And I wonder whether there is someone who would muster to bring up 
the courage to bring this up with upstream again in a constructive way.

Closing with a note to Michael: I learned to know you at DebConf 2016 and I 
value your work. However I didn´t see what you called an ad hominen attack as 
actually being one.

(I may refrain from any further comment here as I think its not really the 
place to discuss it.)

Thank you,
-- 
Martin