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: 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 > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 02:25:03PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Jan 03, Andrew Shadura 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

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:25:03 +0100 m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > This would be a lot of work for the benefit of a tiny audience: the > disturbed people who hate systemd so much that they cannot accept even > that libsystemd is installed on their computers. And insults like this is why a

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Conversely, if the patches are invasive and unmaintainable, its not on Debian to merge them. On Jan 3, 2018 9:09 AM, "Wouter Verhelst" wrote: On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Hi, > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com>

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Hi, > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

On Jan 03, Andrew Shadura 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 systemd so much that they cannot

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Quoting Andrew Shadura (2018-01-03 13:59:05) > Hi, > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package maintainers

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Andrew Shadura, on mer. 03 janv. 2018 13:59:05 +0100, wrote: > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Package: general > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Please introduce official nosystemd build profile so downstream > > distributions can send patches to package

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

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 general, build profiles are not meant to result in

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Hi, On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375...@gmail.com> wrote: > Package: general > Severity: wishlist > > 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. Do

Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile

Package: general Severity: wishlist 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.