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
> "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.
Adrian> Suppor
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 benefit
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 better
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 emp
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 i
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 there's
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 introducing the equivalent u
[ 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
> >
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 the
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
>
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 do
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 profil
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 buildi
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
https://wiki.deb
> "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 intention! :) It co
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
> > discussion woul
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 de
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 base
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, t
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 benefits
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 to provide a more
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 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 - tha
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 15:
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
vie
26 matches
Mail list logo
