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

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

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

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

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