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

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

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 the requirement for the bootstrap profiles to not > >

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: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Sam Hartman writes: > Russ, I'm somewhat confused by the above. > It sounds like Debian as a whole is fairly OK with dependencies on > libsystemd0 etc. > We want systems to run without systemd as pid 1 but we don't mind > systemd libraries being installed. > I thought the

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes: Russ, I'm somewhat confused by the above. It sounds like Debian as a whole is fairly OK with dependencies on libsystemd0 etc. We want systems to run without systemd as pid 1 but we don't mind systemd libraries being installed. I thought the

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

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 05:03 +, Wookey wrote: > And the reason why you'd use it for something like this is that it > lets you upstream patches (which change dependencies) in a reasonably > clean way. And is the reason this is preferable to `dpkg-vendor` based stuff because `dpkg-vendor` cannot

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Wookey writes: > The package header says what profiles it was built with. The package > name+version doesn't change - that's part of the point. No-one should be > trying to put more than one instance of a package built with different > profiles in one repo at one time

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 2018-01-08 20:36 -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 the requirement for the bootstrap profiles to not > > functionally

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: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

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 the requirement for the bootstrap profiles to not functionally change the packages is necessary, but it's the way the folks working on

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Top-posting to just say +1, and that I was going to reply with much the same. I don't even think the requirement for the bootstrap profiles to not functionally change the packages is necessary, but it's the way the folks working on bootstrappability have chosen to do it, so it's their call. But

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: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

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 downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with > > systemd-less build instead of keep them in home. >

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

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Matthias, > > > > (accusing Debian to "vandalize" open source by supporting systemd) [..] > > > I was accused of this on the "dng" mailing list. It should be easy to > > > find the relevant threads. [..] > > And you were accused because you had removed (broken) functionality > > from sysv script

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 at 18:55:28 +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > IMO, [a nosystemd profile] is a relevant bug because of non-Linux > ports. If it existed, it would probably make sense for those buildd > to always select the nosystemd profile when building, which would make > life easier. We can

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

2018-01-07 20:00 GMT+01:00 Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com>: > On 1/6/18, Chris Lamb wrote: >>> > (accusing Debian to "vandalize" open source by supporting systemd) >> […] >>> 1) Proofs please. DDG & Google find only your words. >> >> I was accused of this on the "dng" mailing

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 1/6/18, Chris Lamb wrote: >> > (accusing Debian to "vandalize" open source by supporting systemd) > […] >> 1) Proofs please. DDG & Google find only your words. > > I was accused of this on the "dng" mailing list. It should be easy to > find the relevant threads. To be honest

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Jan 07, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > duplicates that code. The correct response to a patch to build without > > libsystemd is "no, that's what libsystemd exists for". > Does this approach also work for non-Linux ports? Yes, as long as somebody would bother to update the

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 01/04/2018 01:33 AM, Josh Triplett wrote: > Building without *libsystemd*, on the other hand, *is* invasive, > precisely because libsystemd *already* includes the necessary code to > handle systems without systemd, and building without libsystemd > duplicates that code. The correct response to

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 01/03/2018 08:01 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > Catering to fanatics who insist on treating it specially, without technical > merit, has no bearing on the freeness or universality of Debian. Probably, though IMO if your sentence can in some degree be socially correct (aren't we all tired of those

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Simon McVittie writes: > On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 at 00:27:15 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> sysvinit probably only stays in testing because systemd >> depends on sysv-rc for compatability with LSB init scripts... > > I think it did during the default init system transition, but it doesn't > any

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 at 00:27:15 +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > sysvinit probably only stays in testing because systemd > depends on sysv-rc for compatability with LSB init scripts... I think it did during the default init system transition, but it doesn't any more. sysvinit-utils is still

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Am 06.01.2018 um 23:35 schrieb Adam Borowski: > On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:17:14PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Jan 06, Simon Richter wrote: >> >>> As it is now, we have a lot of people who are maintaining their own >>> packages outside of Debian. Can we get enough support to

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Adam Borowski writes: > On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:17:14PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: >> On Jan 06, Simon Richter wrote: >> >> > As it is now, we have a lot of people who are maintaining their own >> > packages outside of Debian. Can we get enough support to reintegrate >> > both

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 at 23:35:09 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > I can't think of any pressing issue (#872039 has bogus severity) If that's the case, please could someone with a suitably well-informed opinion downgrade it? (Preferably a maintainer, of course, but failing that, anyone else who's sure

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:17:14PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 06, Simon Richter wrote: > > > As it is now, we have a lot of people who are maintaining their own > > packages outside of Debian. Can we get enough support to reintegrate > > both the people and the code? >

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Simon Richter writes: > Two well-known DDs chimed in in support, and all replies from DDs to > critical replies were completely dismissive of the criticism. Previous > instances of this have been similar. > What should I tell the people who are now maintaining these packages >

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Jan 06, Simon Richter wrote: > As it is now, we have a lot of people who are maintaining their own > packages outside of Debian. Can we get enough support to reintegrate > both the people and the code? I will ignore for the time being the reasons why these packages are

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

[Possible candidate for a move to debian-project] Hi, On 06.01.2018 14:42, Simon McVittie wrote: > If this is important to you (and when I say "you" here I mean > everyone who agrees with that statement, not just you personally), then > src:sysvinit and the ecosystem around it could really

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Sat, 06 Jan 2018 at 05:18:09 +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > We still need a non-systemd ecosystem for everything that is out of > scope for systemd. If this is important to you (and when I say "you" here I mean everyone who agrees with that statement, not just you personally), then src:sysvinit

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hleb, > > (accusing Debian to "vandalize" open source by supporting systemd) […] > 1) Proofs please. DDG & Google find only your words. I was accused of this on the "dng" mailing list. It should be easy to find the relevant threads. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb,

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hi, Am 04.01.2018 um 05:12 schrieb Russ Allbery: > I think the key to a good path forward is to recognize that systemd solved > some specific problems, and to build a roadmap of which problems do indeed > need to be solved and the alternate solutions to them, and which aren't > important enough

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hallo, * Johannes Schauer [Wed, Jan 03 2018, 08:24:49PM]: > > The speculation about a possible nosystemd profile in > > is > > not consistent with that design principle. If a package contains systemd > > units or uses of

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 12:08:42PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 01:47 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Especially you two shouldn't be fighting.  As far as I know, Svante is > > somewhat involved with eudev maintenance in Devuan (done mostly by parazyd, > > though), while

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 01:47 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > Especially you two shouldn't be fighting.  As far as I know, Svante is > somewhat involved with eudev maintenance in Devuan (done mostly by parazyd, > though), while Marco has a great wealth of udev experience. Well I did the work an

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 10:44:24PM +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: Do we have runtime systemd detection in all software linked against libsystemd so it will work properly in absence of systemd? To rebuild software without libsystemd is the only reliable way to ensure that non-systemd code pathes are

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 10:25:14PM +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: 1) Even Wikipedia knows 43 distributions, much more can be found on http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#GNU.2FLinux_distributions, some of them are still Debian based (but migrate to Devuan). Perhaps these

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 10:44:24PM +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > On 1/3/18, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Moreover, defining an official nosystemd profile in Debian signals that we > > are willing to support it, which means any maintainers who refuse such > > patches will

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 at 02:03:56 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 00:41 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 at 23:01:07 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > > What about creating a linux-nosystemd architecture, e.g. > > > dbus-1.12.2/debian/control > > >

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 00:41 +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 at 23:01:07 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > > What about creating a linux-nosystemd architecture, e.g. > > dbus-1.12.2/debian/control > > Build-Depends: > >  libsystemd-dev [linux-any !linux-nosystemd] > > etc. OK, I

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 01:05:27AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 23:09 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Jan 04, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > "anti-systemd zealots" Steve, when did you join LP fanclub? When > > > Ubuntu decided to throw away your

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 at 23:01:07 +0100, Svante Signell wrote: > What about creating a linux-nosystemd architecture, e.g. > dbus-1.12.2/debian/control > Build-Depends: >  libsystemd-dev [linux-any !linux-nosystemd] > etc. We've never applied such drastic measures for other small libraries that

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 23:09 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 04, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "anti-systemd zealots" Steve, when did you join LP fanclub? When > > Ubuntu decided to throw away your upstart and use systemd instead? > > Classy... Yes _your_ reply is classy.

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Jan 04, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > "anti-systemd zealots" Steve, when did you join LP fanclub? When > Ubuntu decided to throw away your upstart and use systemd instead? Classy... > Do we have runtime systemd detection in all software linked against > libsystemd so it will work

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 21:35 +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > On 1/3/18, Andrew Shadura wrote: > > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > something relevant to Debian. > > http://angband.pl/deb/archive.html > >

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 09:59:12AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:36:16AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > The only reason to avoid libsystemd0 is a cheap way to make sure systemd > > paths are not used; some packages (I forgot which) have regressions when > > compiled

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 01/04/2018 08:44 PM, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > "anti-systemd zealots" Steve, when did you join LP fanclub? When > Ubuntu decided to throw away your upstart and use systemd instead? > Should I remind your votes in CTTE? > > Please take your Ubuntu employee hat off and speak as DD. I suggest that

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 1/3/18, Steve Langasek wrote: > Moreover, defining an official nosystemd profile in Debian signals that we > are willing to support it, which means any maintainers who refuse such > patches will immediately become the targets of abuse from anti-systemd > zealots.

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Quoting Hleb Valoshka (2018-01-04 19:35:28) > On 1/3/18, Andrew Shadura wrote: > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is something > > relevant to Debian. > [...] > https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec#Derivative_specific_profiles > > At least

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 1/3/18, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > I think there is only one distribution which wants builds without > libsystemd: the one that formed around MikeeUSA's call to action. 1) Even Wikipedia knows 43 distributions, much more can be found on

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 1/3/18, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > something relevant to Debian. http://angband.pl/deb/archive.html https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec#Derivative_specific_profiles At least some DD have a different

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, 04 Jan 2018 at 04:36:16 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > * utopia stack (policykit and friends) which have a hard dependency on > systemd policykit-1 depends on libpam-systemd, which is currently how you spell "requires a working systemd-logind" in Debian dependencies. systemd-logind is

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:36:16AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > The only reason to avoid libsystemd0 is a cheap way to make sure systemd > paths are not used; some packages (I forgot which) have regressions when > compiled with systemd support as they detect its presence at compile time > rather

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hi Steve, On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 10:48:06AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > > Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on > > Debian to merge them. > > Moreover, defining an official nosystemd

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Adam Borowski writes: > -shim is moribund (and never worked right even when it was maintained), > thus installing it on systems with modular inits is damage. I believe > this is the problem that should be solved first -- because all > non-trivial cases mentioned above use

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:55:44AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with systemd-less > > build instead of keep them in home. > >

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 22:34:01 +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > On 03.01.2018 20:01, Steve Langasek wrote: > > What a nosystemd build profile proposes to do is to avoid linking against > > *lib*systemd, which is an inert library dependency whose runtime impact > > rounds to zero when systemd is not

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: >> Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on Debian >> to merge them. > > Yes. But adding a "nosystemd" build profile is in no way "invasive and > unmaintainable".

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:48:11PM -0900, Britton Kerin wrote: > On 1/3/18, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > >> Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on > >> Debian to merge them. > >

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On 1/3/18, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: >> Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on >> Debian to merge them. > > Moreover, defining an official nosystemd profile in Debian signals that

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hi, On 03.01.2018 20:01, Steve Langasek wrote: > What a nosystemd build profile proposes to do is to avoid linking against > *lib*systemd, which is an inert library dependency whose runtime impact > rounds to zero when systemd is not in use. I don't really care about a bit of dead weight except

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Quoting Simon McVittie (2018-01-03 14:30:55) > On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 15:12:51 +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote: > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with > > systemd-less build instead of keep them in home. > > In

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:46:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > That said, I find that your characterization of someone not wanting > systemd installed on their system as "disturbed" to itself be somewhat > disturbing. You cannot possibly know what grounds someone might have > for not

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on > Debian to merge them. Moreover, defining an official nosystemd profile in Debian signals that we are willing to support it, which means any maintainers

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> writes: > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > distributions can send patches to package maintainers with systemd-less > build instead of keep them in home. If this is about avoiding linking with libsystemd, I think this is

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:40:06PM +0100, Attila Kinali wrote: > And insults like this is why a lot of people stopped discussing > anything with systemd zealots. So win-win? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:46:59AM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > > something relevant to Debian. > > Not at all. > > This would be a lot of work for the benefit of a tiny audience: the > > disturbed people who hate

Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:24:27PM +, Colin Watson wrote: It would be of some benefit to the rest of us because we could probably stop having conversations about it more quickly by pointing to the build profile ... That seems overly optimistic at best. Mike Stone

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 14:26 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Do we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > something relevant to Debian. > > Well, if Debian wants to remain relevant to downstreams, it'd be > better to accomodate their needs. I think there is only one

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:13:24AM -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on Debian > to merge them. Yes. But adding a "nosystemd" build profile is in no way "invasive and unmaintainable". (why the top-post?) > On Jan 3, 2018 9:09

  1   2   >