Re: Question Under Proposal D: Compile Time Option

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Thibaut Paumard writes ("Re: Question Under Proposal D: Compile Time Option"):
> I think the right fix would be to compile the package twice as "foo"
> (for the systemd version) and "foo-non-systemd".
> 
> Another option would be to ship both versions in package "foo" and
> decide at runtime which one to run, if technically feasible.

I agree.

> My understanding of D.7 is that, If someone provides a patch that
> implements either of this in a maintainable fashion, this patch should
> be accepted.

Yes.

Simon asked whether under my option a patch to just switch to the
non-systemd version would have to be accepted.  In proposal this
depends on whether the effect on systemd installations is
"substantial".

But what is really being decided there is who is given the task of
changing the packaging to have it build both versions.  Given that the
maintainer is going to have to deal with whatever approach is taken to
building twice that doesn't seem like it makes much difference in
practice: the maintainer is probably going to want to do that work
themselves anyway, so that it is done the way they like it.

I do think this is a suboptimal situation and it would be much better
to patch the code to be able to make the choice at runtime.  I'm
hoping this kind of thing won't be very common.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.