[systemd-devel] Please proof-read: systemd’s dependencies and installation footprint

[Lennart Poettering]

On Sat, 08.06.13 15:14, Michael Stapelberg (stapelberg at debian.org) wrote:

> Hi,

Heya!
> I intend to publish a document about systemd’s dependencies and
> installation footprint (along with a blog article) to a wider scope soon
> and would like to make sure I don’t publish anything which is plain
> wrong.
> 
> Therefore, I’d be thankful if you could proofread
> http://t.zekjur.net/dependencies.html and let me know if you see
> anything wrong there.

Thanks for putting this together! Much appreciated.

A few notes:

If Debian is interested in making systemd minimal, they could split out
logind and loginctl, since that is something you need that only for
systems where users or admins log into. For embedded devices it's
totally optional.

It might be interesting to mention which of the libraries systemd
depends on are actually in Debian's "essential" and "required"
priorities, and hence are nothing that systemd would pull in but
something that one cannot install Debian without anyway. For example,
libpam, libselinux, libattr all are afair.

systemd-shutdown is not statically linked.

systemd-multi-seat-x is something we should probably kill off soon. It's
not really necessary anymore with modern X.

The readahead, bootchart, nspawn, activate, analyze, cgls/gtop stuff is
something debian could still split off, btw, if they really wanted to
(not that I would recommend that, but well...). 

Hmm, you list that our daemons would require pcre? That's weird, we
don't really do that. That sounds like a bug, i.e. something pulls
something in that shouldn't. Maybe selinux is borked? (it recently got
an pcre dep). it might be worth figuring out what is adding this. It
really shouldn't be there... (I see the same dep on fedora btw, this is
hence something that is not broken in only debian, but everywhere...)

Hope this is useful,

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.