Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #209198 > unrolled thread

Insidious systemd

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Insidious systemd Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> - 2019-05-27 04:10 +0200
    Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-05-27 09:50 +0200
      Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-05-27 18:30 +0200
      Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) arne <sp113438@telfort.nl> - 2019-05-28 05:00 +0200
        Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd) Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-05-28 10:40 +0200
    Re: Insidious systemd Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2019-05-28 23:50 +0200
      Re: Insidious systemd Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-05-29 03:00 +0200
      Re: Insidious systemd Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2019-05-29 18:10 +0200
        Re: Insidious systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-05-29 21:20 +0200
          Re: Insidious systemd Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2019-06-01 15:00 +0200
            Re: Insidious systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-06-02 06:10 +0200
              Re: Insidious systemd David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-02 07:30 +0200
                Re: Insidious systemd Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2019-06-03 08:00 +0200
        Re: Insidious systemd Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2019-05-29 21:30 +0200

#209198 — Insidious systemd

Hi, all!

Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I searched
for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good:  No desktop
environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and single
lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  Imagine my surprise when
during the simulated install (I always check), I discovered systemd
init was set to replace sysvinit.  I had converted Stretch to the
latter during its install last year, but left the systemd libraries.

There was no mention of this wicd caveat or any systemd dependency
anywhere.  Obviously, there were.  What other things does systemd do
that users are unaware and contrary to their wishes?  I wonder . . .

After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated
install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something
better?   I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've done
it before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the work, so
much the better.

Thanks for any input.

B

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#209210 — Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Patrick Bartek (2019-05-27 03:49:06)
> Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I 
> searched for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good: No 
> desktop environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and 
> single lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.

[ unneeded systemd details snipped ]

> After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated 
> install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something better?  
> I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've done it 
> before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the work, so much 
> the better.

Here are the options I know of which provides a UI with wifi strength 
and being more lightweight than network-manager, listed in order of 
personal preference for install on Buster (some, iwd in particular, is 
notably less mature on Stretch):

iwd is extremely lightweight console-only tool yet provides interactive 
probing of wifi strength.  It integrates fine with network-manager and 
systemd if a) explicitly telling those systems to use it and b) 
explicitly turned off wpasupplicant.

connman is in my experience more reliable than wicd but looks ugly.

wicd felt unreliable in my experience - but possibly I didn't give it 
enough attention (see above about disabling wpasupplicant).

iw + wifi-radar if all else fails. :-)


 - Jonas


P.S. At first I skipped this excellent question due to it being 
presented as a rant about systemd.  I dearly recommend to _avoid_ mixing 
rants with questions, as you then are more likely to miss valuable 
input.

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209237 — Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd)

On Mon, 27 May 2019 09:29:46 +0200
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Patrick Bartek (2019-05-27 03:49:06)
> > Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I 
> > searched for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good: No 
> > desktop environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and 
> > single lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  
> 
> [ unneeded systemd details snipped ]
> 
> > After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated 
> > install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something better?  
> > I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've done it 
> > before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the work, so much 
> > the better.  
> 
> Here are the options I know of which provides a UI with wifi strength 
> and being more lightweight than network-manager, listed in order of 
> personal preference for install on Buster (some, iwd in particular, is 
> notably less mature on Stretch):
> 
> iwd is extremely lightweight console-only tool yet provides interactive 
> probing of wifi strength.  It integrates fine with network-manager and 
> systemd if a) explicitly telling those systems to use it and b) 
> explicitly turned off wpasupplicant.
> 
> connman is in my experience more reliable than wicd but looks ugly.
> 
> wicd felt unreliable in my experience - but possibly I didn't give it 
> enough attention (see above about disabling wpasupplicant).
> 
> iw + wifi-radar if all else fails. :-)
> 
> 
>  - Jonas
> 
> 
> P.S. At first I skipped this excellent question due to it being 
> presented as a rant about systemd.  I dearly recommend to _avoid_ mixing 
> rants with questions, as you then are more likely to miss valuable 
> input.

My post WAS initially a report of anamolous behavior during
an install.  I had read of other systemd quirks.  (If no one knows, how
can it be fixed?)  The last paragraph asking for network manager
recommendations other than wicd was an afterthought.  You are correct:
I should have made it two posts.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209271 — Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd)

On Mon, 27 May 2019 09:29:46 +0200
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Patrick Bartek (2019-05-27 03:49:06)
> > Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I 
> > searched for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good: No 
> > desktop environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox
> > and single lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  
> 
> [ unneeded systemd details snipped ]
> 
> > After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated 
> > install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something
> > better? I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've
> > done it before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the
> > work, so much the better.  
> 
> Here are the options I know of which provides a UI with wifi strength 
> and being more lightweight than network-manager, listed in order of 
> personal preference for install on Buster (some, iwd in particular,
> is notably less mature on Stretch):
> 
> iwd is extremely lightweight console-only tool yet provides
> interactive probing of wifi strength.  It integrates fine with
> network-manager and systemd if a) explicitly telling those systems to
> use it and b) explicitly turned off wpasupplicant.
> 
> connman is in my experience more reliable than wicd but looks ugly.
> 
> wicd felt unreliable in my experience - but possibly I didn't give it 
> enough attention (see above about disabling wpasupplicant).
> 
> iw + wifi-radar if all else fails. :-)
> 
> 
>  - Jonas
> 
> 
> P.S. At first I skipped this excellent question due to it being 
> presented as a rant about systemd.  I dearly recommend to _avoid_
> mixing rants with questions, as you then are more likely to miss
> valuable input.
> 
On a headless system I want connection on preferred system, when not
available to another system.
I want this without GUI

I tried wicd and hate networkmanager.

Any hints on cli is welcome!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209290 — Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting arne (2019-05-28 04:37:46)
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 09:29:46 +0200
> Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Patrick Bartek (2019-05-27 03:49:06)
> > > Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I 
> > > searched for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good: No 
> > > desktop environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox
> > > and single lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  
> > 
> > [ unneeded systemd details snipped ]
> > 
> > > After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated 
> > > install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something
> > > better? I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've
> > > done it before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the
> > > work, so much the better.  
> > 
> > Here are the options I know of which provides a UI with wifi strength 
> > and being more lightweight than network-manager, listed in order of 
> > personal preference for install on Buster (some, iwd in particular,
> > is notably less mature on Stretch):
> > 
> > iwd is extremely lightweight console-only tool yet provides
> > interactive probing of wifi strength.  It integrates fine with
> > network-manager and systemd if a) explicitly telling those systems to
> > use it and b) explicitly turned off wpasupplicant.
> > 
> > connman is in my experience more reliable than wicd but looks ugly.
> > 
> > wicd felt unreliable in my experience - but possibly I didn't give it 
> > enough attention (see above about disabling wpasupplicant).
> > 
> > iw + wifi-radar if all else fails. :-)
> > 
> > 
> >  - Jonas
> > 
> > 
> > P.S. At first I skipped this excellent question due to it being 
> > presented as a rant about systemd.  I dearly recommend to _avoid_
> > mixing rants with questions, as you then are more likely to miss
> > valuable input.
> > 
> On a headless system I want connection on preferred system, when not
> available to another system.
> I want this without GUI
> 
> I tried wicd and hate networkmanager.
> 
> Any hints on cli is welcome!

If you mean wifi device auto-connecting to one or another hotspot 
depending on availability, then I think iwd can handle that by first 
interactively connecting to each hotspot and then flagging those 
connections to permit auto-connecting.

If you mean shuffling between different devices (e.g. use wired when 
plugged in otherwise wireless, or use one or another wired connection 
across several ethernet devices) then I think simplest is to set them 
all to auto-connect concurrently (with systemd with a flag, otherwise 
use netplug) and setup their routing priority - the "metric".


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209353

On 2019-05-27, Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I searched
> for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good:  No desktop
> environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and single
> lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  Imagine my surprise when
> during the simulated install (I always check), I discovered systemd
> init was set to replace sysvinit.  I had converted Stretch to the
> latter during its install last year, but left the systemd libraries.
>
> There was no mention of this wicd caveat or any systemd dependency
> anywhere.  Obviously, there were.  What other things does systemd do
> that users are unaware and contrary to their wishes?  I wonder . . .
>
> After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated
> install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something
> better?   I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've done
> it before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the work, so
> much the better.
>
> Thanks for any input.
>
> B
>
>

Are you trolling? You need to talk to the maintainers of wicd and ask
them why there is a systemd dependency.

-- 

Liam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209357

Hello,

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:16:27PM +0100, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2019-05-27, Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I searched
> > for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good:  No desktop
> > environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and single
> > lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  Imagine my surprise when
> > during the simulated install (I always check), I discovered systemd
> > init was set to replace sysvinit.  I had converted Stretch to the
> > latter during its install last year, but left the systemd libraries.

[…]

> Are you trolling? You need to talk to the maintainers of wicd and ask
> them why there is a systemd dependency.

Before bothering developers/maintainers, it would be best to do what
'bw' did elsewhere in this thread and demonstrate that it's most
likely to be because OP is allowing apt to install recommends, and
wicd recommends gksu, which depends on systemd.

OP does claim that their apt already is configured to not install
recommends, but another poster demonstrated that when they forcibly
disable recommends their apt does not try to install gksu, whereas
OP's does. So clarification is pending from OP on this matter.

The phrasing of the question has I think led to some unfortunate
diversions.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209379

On 2019-05-28 22:16:27 +0100, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2019-05-27, Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, all!
> >
> > Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I searched
> > for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good:  No desktop
> > environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and single
> > lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  Imagine my surprise when
> > during the simulated install (I always check), I discovered systemd
> > init was set to replace sysvinit.  I had converted Stretch to the
> > latter during its install last year, but left the systemd libraries.
> >
> > There was no mention of this wicd caveat or any systemd dependency
> > anywhere.  Obviously, there were.  What other things does systemd do
> > that users are unaware and contrary to their wishes?  I wonder . . .
> >
> > After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated
> > install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something
> > better?   I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've done
> > it before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the work, so
> > much the better.
> >
> > Thanks for any input.
> >
> > B
> 
> Are you trolling? You need to talk to the maintainers of wicd and ask
> them why there is a systemd dependency.

He shouldn't. I've a machine that is still under sysvinit, and
I can install wicd without any dependency issue.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209389

On Wed, 29 May 2019 17:43:49 +0200
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:

> On 2019-05-28 22:16:27 +0100, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> > On 2019-05-27, Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > > Hi, all!
> > >
> > > Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I searched
> > > for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good:  No desktop
> > > environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and single
> > > lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  Imagine my surprise when
> > > during the simulated install (I always check), I discovered systemd
> > > init was set to replace sysvinit.  I had converted Stretch to the
> > > latter during its install last year, but left the systemd libraries.
> > >
> > > There was no mention of this wicd caveat or any systemd dependency
> > > anywhere.  Obviously, there were.  What other things does systemd do
> > > that users are unaware and contrary to their wishes?  I wonder . . .
> > >
> > > After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated
> > > install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something
> > > better?   I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've done
> > > it before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the work, so
> > > much the better.
> > >
> > > Thanks for any input.
> > >
> > > B  
> > 
> > Are you trolling? You need to talk to the maintainers of wicd and ask
> > them why there is a systemd dependency.  
> 
> He shouldn't. I've a machine that is still under sysvinit, and
> I can install wicd without any dependency issue.
> 

What version OS you running? Fully up-to-date? GNOME? Or something else?

My install of Stretch was very atypical.  Started with a basic terminal
system using a netinstall CD, then added X, Openbox, apps, etc.  No
desktop environment was ever installed.  No login manager either.  Boots
to a terminal, log-in, then run startx.  It's a basic GUI set up.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209494

On 2019-05-29 12:01:44 -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 17:43:49 +0200
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> > He shouldn't. I've a machine that is still under sysvinit, and
> > I can install wicd without any dependency issue.
> 
> What version OS you running? Fully up-to-date? GNOME? Or something else?

Debian/unstable (which should now be very similar to testing), fully
up-to-date except a few unrelated packages. Various GNOME packages
installed.

Note: The dependency resolvers are sometimes wrong, sometimes wanting
to remove/replace packages even when this is not needed. In such a
case, a solution is to provide packages you want to keep, e.g. for
sysvinit-core:

  apt install wicd sysvinit-core

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209517

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 14:39:41 +0200
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:

> On 2019-05-29 12:01:44 -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 May 2019 17:43:49 +0200
> > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:  
> > > He shouldn't. I've a machine that is still under sysvinit, and
> > > I can install wicd without any dependency issue.  
> > 
> > What version OS you running? Fully up-to-date? GNOME? Or something else?  
> 
> Debian/unstable (which should now be very similar to testing), fully
> up-to-date except a few unrelated packages. Various GNOME packages
> installed.

Maybe, the "problem's" been fixed.

> Note: The dependency resolvers are sometimes wrong, sometimes wanting
> to remove/replace packages even when this is not needed. In such a
> case, a solution is to provide packages you want to keep, e.g. for
> sysvinit-core:

Could be the reason, but I shouldn't have to do that.  That's why I
don't think an init system should every be a dependency of the system or
any app.  None of the others are.  Why does systemd have to be?

Thanks for your advice.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209518

On Sat 01 Jun 2019 at 20:53:47 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 14:39:41 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> > On 2019-05-29 12:01:44 -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 May 2019 17:43:49 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:  
> > > > He shouldn't. I've a machine that is still under sysvinit, and
> > > > I can install wicd without any dependency issue.  
> > > 
> > > What version OS you running? Fully up-to-date? GNOME? Or something else?  
> > 
> > Debian/unstable (which should now be very similar to testing), fully
> > up-to-date except a few unrelated packages. Various GNOME packages
> > installed.
> 
> Maybe, the "problem's" been fixed.

Which problem, the error in your apt configuration,
or the alleged dependency?

> > Note: The dependency resolvers are sometimes wrong, sometimes wanting
> > to remove/replace packages even when this is not needed. In such a
> > case, a solution is to provide packages you want to keep, e.g. for
> > sysvinit-core:
> 
> Could be the reason, but I shouldn't have to do that.  That's why I
> don't think an init system should every be a dependency of the system or
> any app.  None of the others are.  Why does systemd have to be?

What is the actual dependency that you're complaining about, ie which
specific package depends on which? I can't follow exactly how far
you've rolled back your original complaint.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209544

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 00:09:21 -0500
David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat 01 Jun 2019 at 20:53:47 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 14:39:41 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:  
> > > On 2019-05-29 12:01:44 -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:  
> > > > On Wed, 29 May 2019 17:43:49 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:    
> > > > > He shouldn't. I've a machine that is still under sysvinit, and
> > > > > I can install wicd without any dependency issue.    
> > > > 
> > > > What version OS you running? Fully up-to-date? GNOME? Or something else?    
> > > 
> > > Debian/unstable (which should now be very similar to testing), fully
> > > up-to-date except a few unrelated packages. Various GNOME packages
> > > installed.  
> > 
> > Maybe, the "problem's" been fixed.  
> 
> Which problem, the error in your apt configuration,
> or the alleged dependency?

Whatever caused systemd to want to be installed on my Stretch
system, but not on Buster or Sid when installing wicd which explicitly
states having no systemd dependency.

> > > Note: The dependency resolvers are sometimes wrong, sometimes wanting
> > > to remove/replace packages even when this is not needed. In such a
> > > case, a solution is to provide packages you want to keep, e.g. for
> > > sysvinit-core:  
> > 
> > Could be the reason, but I shouldn't have to do that.  That's why I
> > don't think an init system should every be a dependency of the system or
> > any app.  None of the others are.  Why does systemd have to be?  
> 
> What is the actual dependency that you're complaining about, ie which
> specific package depends on which? I can't follow exactly how far
> you've rolled back your original complaint.

Someone traced that down.  Seems the systemd dependency is from a
Recommend or two for wicd. But this is all academic now.  I've decided
to abandoned wicd.  wifi-radar looked good and installed without a
hitch.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#209390

On 2019-05-29, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> On 2019-05-28 22:16:27 +0100, Liam O'Toole wrote:
>> On 2019-05-27, Patrick Bartek <patrick.bartek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, all!
>> >
>> > Needing to convert this box from wired ethernet to wireless, I searched
>> > for a suitable network manager and wicd looked good:  No desktop
>> > environment dependencies (I use a window manager Openbox and single
>> > lxpanel), compatibility with Openbox, etc.  Imagine my surprise when
>> > during the simulated install (I always check), I discovered systemd
>> > init was set to replace sysvinit.  I had converted Stretch to the
>> > latter during its install last year, but left the systemd libraries.
>> >
>> > There was no mention of this wicd caveat or any systemd dependency
>> > anywhere.  Obviously, there were.  What other things does systemd do
>> > that users are unaware and contrary to their wishes?  I wonder . . .
>> >
>> > After more investigating, I came across wifi-radar whose simulated
>> > install doesn't muck my system.  Any suggestions for something
>> > better?   I could just go with iwconfig or iw?  No big deal.  I've done
>> > it before.  But being lazy, if I can find an app to do the work, so
>> > much the better.
>> >
>> > Thanks for any input.
>> >
>> > B
>> 
>> Are you trolling? You need to talk to the maintainers of wicd and ask
>> them why there is a systemd dependency.
>
> He shouldn't. I've a machine that is still under sysvinit, and
> I can install wicd without any dependency issue.
>

Then the dependency is not a hard one, and OP is free to not install
systemd if he wishes. There's nothing "insidious" about it.

-- 

Liam

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web