> > The critical difference is that this is not a separate and > standalone > > utility... > > Yet this is the justification you're using as to why an SRU will be > safe.
Runtime behaviour and maintenance/development workflows are very separate and independent matters, and I've explained that at length already. > It seems to me that it's perfectly possible for you to arrange a > build > of a static binary in a PPA, and use that to solve your problem. > > You are also implying that the binary will not need to change again, > so > there's basically no technical debt there as far as I can tell, > contrary > to your previous claim. Especially as you're upstream for it too, so > it's not like that's going to end up "behind" for security any more > than > the official Ubuntu repository that would depend on you anyway. > > If you don't want to ship a single binary in a PPA, then that's up to > you. But you can't justify your request on the basis of your > inability > to do that, when actually it's simply your refusal to do that at the > cost of additional risk to Ubuntu users. It is not 'perfectly possible'. We are not going to completely overhaul our development and maintenance practices and commit to a ton of extra work (forever) for the sake of a mistake in the build-time configuration of src:systemd in Jammy, sorry. There are two possible outcomes here: 1) The executable becomes available, either in the main package or in a new binary one in universe 2) Ubuntu is dropped as a supported platform for systemd developers, and when they find out things don't work we tell them to switch their machines to Debian/Fedora/SUSE/Arch/etc I've worked out of my free time to provided the MR, testing, and the bureaucratic homework for the first one as I believe it's in the best interests of all parties. I've also already committed to provide the changes for a new temporary binary package if that's the preferred approach, and I am still happy to follow-up on that committment. I very much prefer the first option. If on the other hand the second option is the preferred one by the Ubuntu team, then please let me know and we can cut it short. -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
