Bug#886238: closed by Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> (Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
On 1/5/18, Debian Bug Tracking System <owner@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
> From: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>
...
> 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 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 broken, it's not able to resolve hostnames, but for fanboys
it's not a grave issue, it's just a "wishlist". While to return SysV
support only oneliner is required:
git revert $badcommint && gbp dch && dch -r && gbp buldpackage && dput ...
For me it was much easier to upload the fixed version to Devuan than
convince the maintainer that this oneliner is not a "burden" as he
says.
> Apart from that, I don't see that you managed to describe what a
> "nosystemd" profile would actually do. This would be the least we would
> need from such a bug report.
If you really needed such information you would ask for it, add
appropriate tags, etc. But you just closed it so It just means that
you are absolutely not interested in this.
But the idea was the following:
1) Debian recognizes 'nosystemd' as official build profile, so it
actually means "adds it to lintian".
2) Devuan community creates patches that allows usage of the profile,
so packages built with it have only sane dependencies.
3) If DD/DM is a fanboy, s/he doesn't accepts the patches and we keep
them in our repository.
4) In Debian packages are build without the profile enabled.
5) In Devuan they are automatically rebuilt with it. No manual
interaction is required.
6) Profit. Everybody are happy.
Of course, some persons tries to convince that without running s*d
libsystemd0 does nothing, actually it does, at least sd_notify() (I
believe 99% daemons use only it) writes to unix socket listed in
$NOTIFY_SOCKET without any checks what actually listens on another
side. Do we really need an additional library to send random crap to
random socket? I doubt.
> However what I see is, that you and others instead of actually engaging
> in discussions just referred to personal attacks. I and others consider
> this unacceptable behaviour on our technical mailing lists and our bug
> tracker. Please be adviced that I will ask both the BTS owner and the
> list masters to block you from ever posting again if this behaviour
> continues.
Have you sent the same warnings to your mates from LP fanclub who
actually started attacking those willing to keep away from s*d
accusing them being "disturbed persons" even "zealots", i.e. fanatical
killers and terrorists killing everybody who doesn't support them?
> As I don't think anything new will come up, I'm closing this bug report.
> Don't reopen it, this might just expedite your fate.
Typical reaction for a fanboy. "Only my opinion is a correct one. All
other are incorrect and their owners should be banned."
Of course you can ban. Debian took the wrong direction from being
community driven distribution to being a testbed and advocate for
corporations, but I don't want to work for free for canonical/rh/etc.
I spent some time during the last five years maintaining two dozens of
packages in Debian, but if Debian doesn't tolerate dissent any more
treat this as request for removal for them.
Reply to: