Hi, Quoting Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (2015-02-17 21:31:05) > Le lundi, 16 février 2015, 13.38:01 Adam Borowski a écrit : > > Second, all but one (upower) of affected packages can be recompiled to > > drop the dependency. If you bothered to read lists you're subscribed > > to, you would probably know of my set of deinfected packages at: > > deb http://angband.pl/debian nosystemd > > deb-src http://angband.pl/debian nosystemd > > which are included for example in Trios. After such a recompilation, > > you can have a systemd-free system with no functionality loss -- in > > fact, it does solve some regressions compared to systemd-using hacks > > like -shim. > > Given a common interface (such as 'nosystemd' in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS), > I, for one, would most probably include (whishlist-level) patches > reducing this repetitive work to needing to set up automatic buildds > setting the correct options. build profiles would be a better fit for such a mechanism. You could then even conditionally include or exclude build dependencies depending on whether or not the build profile "nosystemd" is active or enable or disable certain binary packages being built. This would "abuse" build profiles to work more like Gentoo USE flags. I talked about that idea a bit in this thread: http://lists.debian.org/20141212114840.15300.27739@hoothoot I'm not endorsing this idea but just wanted to point out that this would be a technically superior solution to encoding this in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. This would for example also make it possible for downstreams of Debian which want a "systemd free" derivative to contribute their modifications back into Debian. The only difference they would then have is, that their buildds would build packages with DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nosystemd set. cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature