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 who refuse such patches will immediately become the targets of abuse from anti-systemd zealots. Building a derivative around the exclusion of libsystemd from the filesystem is not technically defensible. This is a purely political fork, and it's politics that we should stay entirely clear of. > On Jan 3, 2018 9:09 AM, "Wouter Verhelst" <wouter@debian.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 3 January 2018 at 13:12, Hleb Valoshka <375gnu@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 we really need systemd-less builds? I'm not convinced this is > > something relevant to Debian. > > We don't *need* them, but it's not a problem if people want to support > it. Debian has always allowed things to be defined by those that want to > do the work. > > If adding an official "nosystemd" build profile makes life easier for > people who want to support systemd-less builds, and they send patches to > keep the build profile actually working, then that doesn't hurt us in > any way and I think we should do it. > > -- > Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!? > > -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008 > Hacklab -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature