Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
>>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> 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.
Adrian> Support for nosystemd in only 95% of all libsystemd-using
Adrian> packages would still result in libsystemd being installed -
Adrian> if just one maintainer would refuse to apply a nosystemd
Adrian> patch, the people working on nosystemd in Debian basically
Adrian> have to rely on CTTE overruling the maintainer.
I disagree with this.
First, that's only true if the package in question is essential, or if
the user needs to install the package in question.
In a world where users never modify, patch or rebuild source you're
absolutely right that this only provides utility if you get 100%
coverage.
users include organizations that are willing to rebuild packages
(patching them if necessary) to meet regulatory, security, or other
requirements. Users also include downstream distributions and their
users who are willing to patch software.
In this world, there is siginificant utility to minimizing the number of
patches users apply.
95% coverage would be much easier to deal with than no support at all.
I feel fairly strongly about this because I have been that downstream.
I've been in situations where I was trying to get some feature into
Debian or another project. I suspect my future includes a fair number
of cases where the future I care about involves being able to build
without some feature because doing so makes regulatory accreditation
much easier for me.
Perhaps it's not worth Debian's time to work with me.
However I'm frustrated when you claim that this only has utility to me
when Debian gets 100% coverage: minimizing divergence has real value.
Does it have enough value to justify some change to Debian? I think we
should consider that on a case by case basis like we always do.
In the particular case of systemd, I don't have any interest in working
to make it easier to build on Linux without libsystemd installed. I'd
probably accept patches that did not significantly increase the
complexity of my packages if they did that, but would not go write such
patches.
Reply to: