Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 22:54:25 +0100
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 09:59:12AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 04:36:16AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > The only reason to avoid libsystemd0 is a cheap way to make sure systemd
> > paths are not used; some packages (I forgot which) have regressions when
> > compiled with systemd support as they detect its presence at compile time
> > rather than runtime.
> Those sound like bugs though. Did you file them?
The utopia stack currently hard-depends on systemd; I haven't tested a
_partially_ rebuilt set of packages in quite a while (since The Great
Flamewar, which happened just before jessie freeze, to be exact) -- at that
time, even well-tested patches were routinely rejected with angry messages,
so I didn't bother and just started my private repository, which is fully
rebuilt. I was also not a DD at the time.
It'd be good to look for such regressions, but not right now -- a change to
elogind, consolekit65536 (I lost track of its forks), loginkit or Parabola's
notsystemd would invalidate such findings anyway. I'll poke some folks who
can help evaluate the alternatives.
Doing such research myself would require learning a lot about logind, and
that'd require tuits I need for playing with a yet another random SoC,
molesting an obscure terminal font's upstream about license or trying to get
a controversial patch past Al Viro :p.
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.