Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 18:52:57 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 10/01/18 01:29, Sam Hartman wrote: > > A build profile seems like a great way to express the flag, and like > > many things in Debian, the work would fall on those who would benefit > > from it. > > I think it'd be better to

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes: Adrian> For many use flags the only benefit is an unused library Adrian> less on the system when the flag is disabled, and this also Adrian> applies to the proposed nosystemd profile discussed in this Adrian> bug. Agreed.

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 18/01/18 21:50, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:52:57PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 10/01/18 01:29, Sam Hartman wrote: >>> A build profile seems like a great way to express the flag, and like >>> many things in Debian, the work would fall on those who would

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:52:57PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 10/01/18 01:29, Sam Hartman wrote: > > A build profile seems like a great way to express the flag, and like > > many things in Debian, the work would fall on those who would benefit > > from it. > > I think it'd be

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > I think it'd be better to be able to mark a build-dependency as > optional, and then implement a mechanism in dpkg to disable the > undesired build-dependencies. Someone who was interested could get part way to this by running builds with an

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 10/01/18 01:29, Sam Hartman wrote: > A build profile seems like a great way to express the flag, and like > many things in Debian, the work would fall on those who would benefit > from it. I think it'd be better to be able to mark a build-dependency as optional, and then implement a mechanism

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:29:51PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > A build profile seems like a great way to express the flag, and like > many things in Debian, the work would fall on those who would benefit > from it. > So, I do support the use of build profiles for use flags. > I also believe

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:29:51PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes: > > Adrian> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:23:32PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> ... Given the background of build-profiles, I'm very much in > >> favor of

Re: Storing build profiles in binary packages (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

[ Just few comments to complement josch's veyr nice reply, with which I completely agree with. ] On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 00:47:28 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Steve Langasek (2018-01-10 21:49:02) > > As a policy, I think it's clear that packages built with non-default > > profiles >

Storing build profiles in binary packages (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Quoting Steve Langasek (2018-01-10 21:49:02) > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:36:50PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 12:09:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Top-posting to just say +1, and that I was going to reply with much the > > > same. > > > > I don't even think

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Hi, Quoting Steve Langasek (2018-01-10 21:52:44) > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:07:01PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Such a header could be introduced but that would be undesirable for two > > reasons: > > > - it would make it hard to check whether the binary packages a source > > package

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:23:32PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 18:37:11 +, Wookey wrote: > > On 2018-01-03 13:30 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > > On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 15:12:51 +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:07:01PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Such a header could be introduced but that would be undesirable for two > reasons: > - it would make it hard to check whether the binary packages a source package >produces are really not different with a certain build

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Quoting Paul Wise (2018-01-10 02:40:07) > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > No, there is no header in the binary packages that indicates with which > > profile a source package was built to generate the given binary package. > Is this information present in the new

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > No, there is no header in the binary packages that indicates with which > profile > a source package was built to generate the given binary package. Is this information present in the new buildinfo files? -- bye, pabs

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes: Adrian> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:23:32PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: >> ... Given the background of build-profiles, I'm very much in >> favor of introducing the equivalent usage as Gentoo USE flags, >> which was its main

Derivative specific build profiles (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Quoting Jeremy Bicha (2018-01-09 17:35:30) > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > So we > > could talk about whether we should allow more build profiles that change > > binary > > package contents but so far I don't see the use case for them and thus the

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Quoting Adrian Bunk (2018-01-09 20:54:31) > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:22:33PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:35:30AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > > At times, Ubuntu needs to avoid certain build-dependencies because > > > they would add an unwanted "universe" binary

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:23:32PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: >... > Given the background of build-profiles, I'm very much in favor of > introducing the equivalent usage as Gentoo USE flags, which was its > main intention! :) It could make Debian a viable source-based > distribution to use or

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:22:33PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:35:30AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > At times, Ubuntu needs to avoid certain build-dependencies because > > they would add an unwanted "universe" binary dependency to a "main" > > package. In some cases,

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:35:30AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: At times, Ubuntu needs to avoid certain build-dependencies because they would add an unwanted "universe" binary dependency to a "main" package. In some cases, that is the *only* change Ubuntu makes to the package. I believe it

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Johannes Schauer wrote: > So we > could talk about whether we should allow more build profiles that change > binary > package contents but so far I don't see the use case for them and thus the > discussion would be a bit academic. Ok, let me try

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 2018-01-09 15:07 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Wookey (2018-01-09 06:03:26) > > On 2018-01-08 20:36 -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > > How, then, would you tell by looking at the package name+version which > > > kind > > > of package you have? > > The package header says what

(was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Quoting Wookey (2018-01-09 06:03:26) > On 2018-01-08 20:36 -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > How, then, would you tell by looking at the package name+version which kind > > of package you have? > The package header says what profiles it was built with. The package > name+version doesn't change -

Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Hi! [ Thanks, I also wanted to chime in and mention this, because it seems other people might not be clear on the history and motivations for build-profiles! ] On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 18:37:11 +, Wookey wrote: > On 2018-01-03 13:30 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at

sysvinit-utils essentialness (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

Hello all, Given I've poked a bit at what Simon mentions below in the past and don't really have any intention to follow this (and any other remaining item mentioned at [0]) through (and not aware of anyone else picking it up either), I thought I'd take this opportunity to share a bit about my

Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/8/18, Don Armstrong wrote: > >> Devuan does not support reading the new upstream configuration file, >> which is what new patches are needed to support. This is pretty classic >> bitrot of an

Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 1/8/18, Don Armstrong wrote: > Devuan does not support reading the new upstream configuration file, > which is what new patches are needed to support. This is pretty classic > bitrot of an underused/under-tested execution path. It does:

Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 08:46 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > All of that said, if you are interested in Debian supporting a nosystemd > build profile, continuing to escalate conflicts with other developers is > not helping your cause. It would be more helpful if people on _both_ sides would stop

Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > "as it was in previous package versions" > > It was removed in 1.8.1-3, but it was in <= 1.8.1-2. It was removed in 1.8.1-3 because upstream has switched to distributing a dns-dnscrypt-proxy.conf and /etc/default/dnsscript-proxy is no longer used at

Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 1/8/18, Philip Hands wrote: >> I've already posted a bug number which perfectly shows how bugs for >> systemd-less systems are treated. >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=850069 >> >>> Control: severity -1 wishlist >> >> W_I_S_H_L_I_S_T_! >> >> System is

Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/5/18, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> From: Bastian Blank > ... >> As you have been already told by several people, Debian supports >> systemd-less systems. If you find bugs running

Re: Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 07/01/18 22:41, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > Have you sent the same warnings to your mates from LP fanclub Please, stop this. This is the Debian devel list, and personal opinions about Lennart Poettering (or anyone else) IMHO just have no place here. Time to create a new list systemd-flamewars?

Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <wa...@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)

On 1/5/18, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > From: Bastian Blank ... > As you have been already told by several people, Debian supports > systemd-less systems. If you find bugs running in this mode, please > file bug reports. I've already posted a bug