How to avoid stealth installation of systemd?

[aicardi]

+1 ^^

[oswaldkelso]

Debian is what it is, if you don't love it anymore, just move on. And remember that Debian is a DISTRIBUTION!

Pretty much done.

Debian doesn't make code, apps, programs.
They get what's there and package it.

Not strictly true. Slackware does that. Debian is way more intrusive.

The choice was made not to invest precious resources in fighting the "systemd doom" and whether you like it or not, the status quo is this, either systemd or whatever else with a few systemd dependencies, as a price to get all the software you want, which is systemd dependent because their upstream developers decided so, not Debian.

Fighting "systemd doom" as you call it is about Debian remaining the "Universal operating system" If Debian Had chosen to offer a choice at install I would have had no real qualms about systemd. Having to install one system to install another of your choice makes you a slave of the first.

I think that the essence of a system without systemd is pretty much still intact and any whining about the "purity" of a system that absolutely can't have a few dependencies that do nothing, well, speaks for itself in telling what is really important for the anti-systemd fanatics. (hint: making a fuss.)

I think installing a system without systemd on Debian is hard work and any whining about systemd installing only a few non essential dependancys is naive at best and stupid at worst. dependencies that do nothing, don't need to be installed do they. (Not making a fuss, just pointing out the obvious.)

Just so you know, because maybe you didn't read my posts in several past discussion on the matter, I am not a systemd fan, even if I have been using it ever since it entered Testing a long time ago, being a Gnome user (another "sin" I suppose).

It's not a sin It's a choice. Removing choice is the sin.

I am neutral, mostly because I don't know better and the only reason I chime in in threads like this is because I am fed up with people of the anti-systemd brigade spreading FUD and playing name-calling games in every thread and showing, for the most part, paranoia and a clear lack of understanding of the situation, pushing on in their blind faith driven crusade.

Neutral! You are not.

Systemd is here and is here to stay. Hopefully projects like Devuan will offer an alternative for users seeking "purity", or maybe in the end you guys will realize that option 2 is fair enough so do yourself a favor: just run the freaking system with sysvinit and a few systemd libs and get over it

Users seeking "purity" should not be seeking hope. They should be expecting unfettered choice from "The universal operating system"
Anyway, I have no real interest in the new Debian monoculture, so much so that my once prized Debian T-shirt is no longer on public display. Makes me very sad every time I see it and feel the need to cover it up.

[mor]

Oswald, how can you say I'm not neutral?
Just because I beg systemd detractors not to be childish assholes who call Poettering names and prophetize a systemd apocalipse every other post?
Or is it because I use it, or better yet, because it is in function on my system without me caring that much or having noticed much of a difference ever since?

If I'm not neutral what is neutral?
Either one is pro or against?

Are you pro emacs or nano?
I'm neutral again.

Anyway, I think one safe major point to reduce everything to, is the "removal of choice" argument.

You are complaining that Debian is no longer offering you a choice.
But then again you also say it is just harder.

What is it?
Harder or no choice?

Nevermind, what should have been in you opinion Debian's course of action?
Should they have done what Devuan is doing?
Strip every trace away like gangrene?

And how would have that solution preserved the choice for the other?
I mean, maintaining the "pure" no-systemd distro would have had to be an exclusive choice, seen how extensive systemd is and how cumbersome and laborious it is to eradicate it from every upstream source that independently from Debian's will requires it.

So basically Debian should have made a choice, like it did, just your choice.

Oswald, believe it or not, I don't support systemd: understanding the technical implications and nuances of this issue is above me. If when systemd entered my system I was told that sysvinit had just changed how to start and stop services I would have never even imagined something that big had happened.
But that's me, I'm just a user, you are certainly entitled to feel disappointed and annoyed. Still, trust me when I say I don't have a favorite.

I use the Debian system like I did for more than ten years so far, I trust that Debian developers know what they are doing and I trust that the sane systemd detractors will keep an eye open against any shenanigan.
If and when Debian will no longer be ok for me, I'll see what's out there and if nothing will be fine I will simply and finally ( ) take the "alone in the woods" route which is not bad at all to say the truth.

I think installing a system without systemd on Debian is hard work and any whining about systemd installing only a few non essential dependancys is naive at best and stupid at worst. dependencies that do nothing, don't need to be installed do they. (Not making a fuss, just pointing out the obvious.)

Agreed.
I also think transitional/dummy packages are stupid and metapackages are pretty much just for idiots.
I think that having to install half of KDE to get me something like Amarok or Marble is pure insanity: oh if only there was some kde-shim!
(Maybe there is, is there? Please tell me that there is something like that!)

Actually no, I don't think those things are insane or stupid.
Those are limitations of a framework that cannot give you everything and that usually have nothing to do with choice, but more with resources or, at worst, preferences like coding in one language instead of another, or for one specific environment.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with how many choices are there or how incompatible they can be between them.
The quantity, quality and cross compatibility of choices only depends on how many people offer how many and how compatible choices.

Sysvinit is still very much usable and systemd is still very much avoidable, and I also remember reading that some sort of choice about installing systemd or sysvinit was introduced in the installer prior to the Jessie release (but hey, I don't know for sure).

I called it "systemd doom" not on my own but paraphrasing all those who constantly refer to it even simply existing as the ultimate signs of the apocalypse.
As I said, I don't know enough to understand the technical implications of such a software revolution (in positive or negative, if we can call it that), but one thing I know is that there are a few, much less vocal unfortunately, systemd detractors who speak about how it is badly engineered and poorly executed and not about how Redhat is taking over the world, and that their voices get lost in the shitheaded and fanatical festival of antics brought on by the mobbing multitude of fud-spreaders namecalling doomsday wannabe-preachers who seem to have a found a new reason to get up in the morning in running wild everywhere and tainting every discussion with their non constructive, childish and annoying behavior.

Them I want to get rid of, or better yet I want them to grow up, and stop being idiotic, deluded, paranoid hatemongers.

Sorry for the rant and the lengthy post.

Bye

[PAP]

Anyway, I am not here to start a pointless flame war, but to find a solution

No, you are not here to find a solution.

Believe it or not I am (was) here for a solution - as you are here not to give an answer, but just to rant and insult others.

Debian is what it is, if you don't love it anymore, just move on. And remember that Debian is a DISTRIBUTION!

Totally agree, it is what it is - just let me add it's "a systemd-infected distribution". And I am not happy saying that.

Debian doesn't make code, apps, programs.
They get what's there and package it.

Complete nonsense. Debian does NOT do just that.

the status quo is this, either systemd or whatever else with a few systemd dependencies, as a price to get all the software you want, which is systemd dependent because their upstream developers decided so, not Debian.

They did? Really? All of them? How do you know, if I may ask? And how Slackware, Salix, and others, come with the same software, yet no trace of systemd whatsoever? But I forgot, you are not here to help, you are here to shout nonsense without even the slightest argument.

I think that the essence of a system without systemd is pretty much still intact and any whining about the "purity" of a system that absolutely can't have a few dependencies that do nothing, well, speaks for itself in telling what is really important for the anti-systemd fanatics. (hint: making a fuss.)

The important thing is not being anti-systemd (which I certainly am, for a reason). The really important thing is the LIBERTY of CHOICE; I capitalized it in a futile attempt to make you understand. I would be perfectly ok if systemd was in Debian, even if it was the default, BUT I also had the choice NOT to use that sh!t whatsoever. How hard is to get that point, I wonder...

I am not a systemd fan, even if I have been using it ever since it entered Testing a long time ago, being a Gnome user (another "sin" I suppose).

Oh sure, not a systemd fan, yet willing to write long posts defending it and insulting others who happen not to have the same opinion. As for your "sin", let me tell you, there would be a sin (and not your sin) if you were NOT able to do what you do, even if what you basically do is (1) having a systemd-infested OS (monolithic "init", with binary logs, extremely invasive), and (2) running one of the worst resource-devourers ever (aka "Gnome"). I would never let my system being like that, but guess what, I would never insult you because you do it - in total contrast with your behavior.

Systemd is here and is here to stay. Hopefully projects like Devuan will offer an alternative for users seeking "purity", or maybe in the end you guys will realize that option 2 is fair enough so do yourself a favor: just run the freaking system with sysvinit and a few systemd libs and get over it.

Ah yes, it is here to stay. Another one saying that and being all happy about it. I could add more about that, ironic and insulting stuff you certainly love to use yourself. But guess what, I am not like you, and I won't do it. I do "myself a favor", as you put it, but it's not what you recommended. I won't digest the new Debian reality.

VERDICT: Thank you all others who tried to help in this thread. I finally decided I cannot accept solution (2), as described in my post above - which seems to be the only one (for Debian). systemd-shim will still run systemd components "required" for a given application to run. This means my Debian days (quite numerous, by the way) come to an end. My second computer already runs Slackware since yesterday; the packaging system is far from being comparable to the excellent Debian package manager, but well... it's still a great, respectable distro, and certainly better than running poettering-crapware. But I also have other distro options, which I am experimenting with right now.
I will probably end up with Salix or Slackware, but if anyone has another completely systemd-free distro to recommend, I'll be glad to hear and try it. Sadly, Debian is not an option anymore.
Farewell.

[dzz]

I am in the long wait to install Devuan as that is only my present hope. When I succeed to install Devuan on my system, partition /dev/sda8 is patiently waiting for it to be filled

No need to wait. Devuan's debootstrap works. Read mailing list for further details.

[mardybear]

mor wrote:
I also think transitional/dummy packages are stupid and metapackages are pretty much just for idiots.
I think that having to install half of KDE to get me something like Amarok or Marble is pure insanity: oh if only there was some kde-shim!

Could you please then modify your signature. Nobody should need to love metapackages. That's a big part of this lock-in issue. IMO Linux is supposed to be modular. Why should a Desktop Environment dictate which music player or network manager you want to install or remove? In a few years, unless you use Gnome and systemd (you use both) Linux will become much more difficult for others to utilize how they wish (freedom of choice).

Although you don't appear to see it this way, systemd is a similar lock-in. Why should systemd libraries be required because i want to setup a printer? What the heck does an init system have to do with printing? Does that make any sense? Is that freedom of choice?

PAP: Your posts have been informative. Interesting to hear how difficult it has become for the average user to run Linux without any systemd. Someone mentioned recently that Slackware will likely change to systemd. IMO the best options are to either learn FreeBSD or use a Linux distribution that utilizes BusyBox. Good luck with your travels, wherever you end up.

You might find this informative:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=118319

Edit:

PAP wrote: Slackware since yesterday; the packaging system is far from being comparable to the excellent Debian package manager

It pretty much sucks...

[Head_on_a_Stick]

I will probably end up with Salix or Slackware, but if anyone has another completely systemd-free distro to recommend, I'll be glad to hear and try it.

FreeBSD is absolutely excellent and the package manager (pkg) is awesome.

Also, Slackware will almost certainly be using systemd soon...
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions ... 175523380/

[confuseling]

...
Could you please then modify your signature. Nobody should need to love metapackages. That's a big part of this lock-in issue. IMO Linux is supposed to be modular. Why should a Desktop Environment dictate which music player or network manager you want to install or remove? In a few years, unless you use Gnome and systemd (you use both) Linux will become much more difficult for others to utilize how they wish (freedom of choice).
...

You do understand that metapackages a) don't actually directly do anything, and b) are beneficial for those wanting modularity, since they allow people to install things *en bloc*, and the only other sane way to do that would be to put them in single giant package?

[golinux]

You do understand that metapackages a) don't actually directly do anything, and b) are beneficial for those wanting modularity, since they allow people to install things *en bloc*, and the only other sane way to do that would be to put them in single giant package?

*En bloc* tends to overkill. And with the meta package, it becomes difficult to clean out the cruft you don't want. Better to install a base system and then just install the apps you actually want.

[dilberts_left_nut]

*En bloc* tends to overkill. And with the meta package, it becomes difficult to clean out the cruft you don't want. Better to install a base system and then just install the apps you actually want.

How is it "difficult" to remove a metapackage and mark what you want to keep?

[confuseling]

I generally prefer the smaller ones, and even then the mechanism seems imperfect (or at least inelegant). I think with infinite resources they'd make removing parts of them friendlier, and there arguably ought to be finer divisions between 'depends' and 'recommends'.

But I don't see how that makes metapackages bad, or how else you could distribute large groups of binaries (without putting them all in one package, which can only be worse).

[golinux]

*En bloc* tends to overkill. And with the meta package, it becomes difficult to clean out the cruft you don't want. Better to install a base system and then just install the apps you actually want.

How is it "difficult" to remove a metapackage and mark what you want to keep?

Why not just mark what you want to install in the first place. It reminds me of having to install systemd then having to uninstall it to install sysvinit. Useless extra hoop to jump through,

[dilberts_left_nut]

Why not just mark what you want to install in the first place. It reminds me of having to install systemd then having to uninstall it to install sysvinit. Useless extra hoop to jump through,

Presumably because not everybody knows (or cares) exactly which packages are required to work together to provide a given set of functions.
But, yes, of course - there is no requirement to install any metapackages at all if you don't want.
But if you have, and then find that you don't want some of it, just remove it and mark the bits you want to keep.

[edbarx]

I am in the long wait to install Devuan as that is only my present hope. When I succeed to install Devuan on my system, partition /dev/sda8 is patiently waiting for it to be filled

No need to wait. Devuan's debootstrap works. Read mailing list for further details.

I tried Devuan's debootstrap several times, but it was all in vain. Devuan's debootstrap is failing when it tries to call mount in a chroot, notwithstanding at that instant, mount is severely broken. To check I used ldd on the installed mount in Devuan's partition, and found several, not just one, .so file missing! I suspect mount should not be called through chroot at that instant, but instead, the script should call the host OS's mount.

At this time, I am using Debian's Testing which is running smoothly with xfce4 installed. Under sysvinit, I was having several problems that prevented medit, xfce-terminal and vlc to even run. So, I had to revert to allow systemd and Co. to be installed.

However, I am all ears to listen what I should do to get a running Devuan installation, but sadly, I am failing.

[mardybear]

confuseling wrote:
You do understand that metapackages a) don't actually directly do anything, and b) are beneficial for those wanting modularity, since they allow people to install things *en bloc*, and the only other sane way to do that would be to put them in single giant package?

I do understand metapackages, that's why i despise them. On the contrary, the only sane way would be to keep individual applications seperate from the get-go so they could be installed independently of each other in any combination desired. Then the system could better approach true modularity. As Debian utilizes precompiled binaries and has good package management, building up a system in this manner isn't particularly difficult or time consuming.

golinux wrote:
Better to install a base system and then just install the apps you actually want...
Why not just mark what you want to install in the first place. It reminds me of having to install systemd then having to uninstall it to install sysvinit. Useless extra hoop to jump through,

Thank-you...some sanity in the wilderness of madness.

dilberts_left_nut wrote:
Presumably because not everybody knows (or cares) exactly which packages are required to work together to provide a given set of functions.

Sad but true. Everyone has a different agenda, but all users should care what goes into their systems.