Hello:

Whatever for?
We're just exchanging ideas.

And in a civilised manner.  ;^D

I also worked for me till I uninstalled it but quite a few things stopped working properly.
So I installed it again and I then had other issues.
Like I mentioned, getting rid of PCManFM solved the problem.

No need to justify anything, to me or anyone else.

My objections to gvfs are based on it being wired, like the OP wrote, to be a jack-of-all-trades.
Does that approach to writing Linux applications sound familiar to you?

Best,

A.

Hello:

mc is one of the first things I have always installed on any PC, it has been that way ever since I can remember.
Although at that time it was Norton Commander on MS-DOS.

I always use it to ssh into my proto-NAS (WD MBL on OpenWRT) or when do any maintenance on my box, RPi or 1000HE.

I guess it comes down to unconscious preferences (?).
But yes, it is probably the best out there.

A.

Hello:

Not necessarily so.

In my case, not hate as such.
I came across it many years ago when I was gifted a laptop (486?) and went looking for Linux to install.
There was something about it I disliked.
Gut feeling? No idea.

gvfs started acting up when I reinstalled it, fortunately I put paid to that by disabling the offending 'service' with systemctl, a systemd tool.   

I am 'on the fence' so to speak about the rest of the gvfs crap running in my box.
While I both understand and sympathise with what you say, as far as I am concerned the less gnome crap we have in our Devuan box, the better.

As for udisks2 and having read that post linked to by brocashelm, if there is something to replace it I think it is a good idea.

Because we must return to the KISS principle if we want to continue to use our boxes as we see fit.

I arrived late to MSDOS and soon came W3.11, which I actually liked.
The when W95 came along, I had no choice but to use it at work.
When I mentioned this to one of the chaps I knew in IT, he said that W95 was a fantastic user interface, the future of 'computing'. 

At that time, being a raw beginner in the use of a PC, I still remember the thought that crossed my mind sometime later:

"There will come a time when those who actually master the command line will be the only ones to have access to anything related to IT on their own terms."

And here we are ...
As always, just my $0.02

Best,

A.

Hello:

Wanting a gnome-crap clean system, I purged most everything but when I purged gvfs I started having all sorts of issues.
One was that gnome-disks (the only useful gnome application I know of) would not work.

So I installed it again but then it screwed up my connection to a couple of android based thinguies (phone and tablet) when using PCManFM but not Thunar which I don't like as much but cannot get rid of as it is part of the actual XFCE clusterfuck.

I have since found that I can solve that by doing a "unplug thinguie, kill PCManFM, plug thinguie again, start PCManFM" dance.
Gets old in less that 30s.

I have also found that if I do pkill gvfs.* and run mtp-detect, then everything works fine.
Quite damning for gvfs ...
Note: without mtp-detect it does not work.

So ...

Q: how can I stop the gvfs service from running?
It is not listed when I run service --status-all | grep gvfs

But I found all these files which may hold a clue:

/usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-afc-volume-monitor.service
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-daemon.service                   <- ###### this?
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-goa-volume-monitor.service
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-gphoto2-volume-monitor.service
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-metadata.service
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-mtp-volume-monitor.service
/usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-udisks2-volume-monitor.service

~$ cat /usr/lib/systemd/user/gvfs-daemon.service

[Unit]
Description=Virtual filesystem service
PartOf=graphical-session.target

[Service]
ExecStart=/usr/libexec/gvfsd
Type=dbus
BusName=org.gtk.vfs.Daemon
Slice=session.slice
~$ 

How to (safely) deal with this so it will not run at boot and allow me to check if anything goes south?

Thanks in advance.

Best,

A.

Hello:

As long as what was done was the right thing, good going.
Congratulations. 8^D

I would not know how to use /etc/inittab.d so will not opine any further than this:

- the warning existed because sysvinit was looking for the /etc/inittab.d directory and did not find it.
- the (to me) obvious solution was to fix the installer to create it at install time; optional or not, sysvinit was looking for it.
- if there was some issue as how the *.tab files worked or had to be written, add the corresponding documentation.
- I am not too sure it is the right solution because the problem was not the warning, in itself a consequence.
- (to me) problem was the /etc/inittab.d not being where it should have been which generated the warning.

The use of /etc/inittab.d is a feature of sysvinit, maybe very few use it, maybe not.
The solution has only obscured its existence, I only learnt about it because of the warning and fsmithred's post.

As always, just my $0.02

Best,

A.

Hello:

Yes ...
But sysvinit asks for it (see link) so it should be there.

Hmm ...

Added via Debian?
Something that is directly related to sysvinit?   8^D !!!

Right ...
You could try filing a bug against INIT: no inittab.d directory found with the Debian devs.
But you will not like the reply.

TL;DR:
Something along these lines ...

"On your way, mate. This is not a bug, sysvinit is not part of the default Debian configuration".

Eventually and only for completeness' sake, someone with the required knowledge could volunteer to write a small metapackage to do that.

If not, just add it manually and get rid on an unneeded warning in syslog.

Best,

A.

Hello:

The basic Unix principle: Do one thing, and do it well has been broken for many years now.

Hmm....

If we* means the already overworked / short staffed group of people working as well as they can to keep Devuan systemd free, you may want to stop and think a bit.

The die is cast: unless an important group of distributions turn their back on systemd (and I choose systemd as the prime example of the enshittification of the Linux ecosystem) I do not think anything is happening.

* I was going to attempt a humorous approach to this with a "whatyoumin we white man?" quip but I decided against it.
Political correction and all.

Best,

A.

Hello:

Indeed, that is what I understood.

Blacklisting probably has the added effect of keeping rogue agents from doing it.

Best,

A.

Hello:

Always been a matter of common sense / common knowledge to me.

Little black book.
In my opinion, any system can be (eventually) hacked.

Best,

A.

Hello:

Indeed ...
Note the date on the post: March 11, 2012

This chap was bitching about this a whole five years before I started.
Imagine how bad things are now ...

Best,

A.

Hello:

Methinks you nailed it.  8^°

Best,

A.