Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:23:32 +0100
- From: Guillem Jover <guillem@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Bug#886238: Build-Profiles purpose, mechanism vs policy (was Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
[ Thanks, I also wanted to chime in and mention this, because it seems
other people might not be clear on the history and motivations for
On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 18:37:11 +0000, Wookey wrote:
> On 2018-01-03 13:30 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 at 15:12:51 +0300, Hleb Valoshka wrote:
> > > 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.
> > In general, build profiles are not meant
> > to result in functional changes to packages
> > (<https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec#Profile_built_binary_packages>),
> This is correct for the mechanism's main/original purpose of
> bootstrapping/removing cyclic dependencies. The idea is that you
> can't change functionality and still use a dependency with the same
> name, if you actually want to automate the bootstrap process (because
> you don't know which features of a package the depending-on package
Exactly, pretty much because otherwise doing automatic bootstrapping
(reusing existing package names and dependency relationships) becomes
either very hard or impossible to handle or reason about.
But, indeed, when I first envisioned build-profiles [B] it was due to
the embedded case, as a way to trim down packages and dependencies,
and trying come up with something that could make things like
debian/control.in (or worse :) unnecessary. Of course I also had
bootstrapping in mind, but it was secondary at the time. Which is
funny because, the reason this got finally implemented and deployed
in Debian was due to the boostrapping side, when an alternative and
less general proposal was put forward.
So, yes, the distinction between the tooling implenting just mechanism,
and letting the distribution specify policy was very much on purpose.
And while we were drafting the current spec, we also had in mind making
it powerful enough to be able to handle Gentoo USE flags cases, or
provide the features necessary to make things like openembedded and
> > The speculation about a possible nosystemd profile in
> > <https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec#Derivative_specific_profiles> is
> > not consistent with that design principle.
> Right. But I'm not sure that the principles developed around
> bootstrapping necessarily have to apply to profiles developed for
> other purposes, and especially not for downstream distros who can
> define their own policy (within reason).
> The other similar example is 'embedded'. You could have an 'embedded'
> profile that did more rigorous minimisation of packages for space or
> functionality, and exactly what that meant in local policy terms would
> be defined by the derivative using it.
Yes, build-profiles can be used any way we want to. Of course reusing
package-names while breaking the package-visible interface can be
dangerous or might outright break the dependency system. So that's
why we have tried to make that very clear on the spec.
There's also a distinction (which might not always be very clear)
between user-visible and package-visible interfaces. Say if something
is exclusively a user-visible interface, then disabling it via
build-profiles could be fine.
But in any case, nothing says we cannot introduce a namespace for such
interface breaking build-profiles, say: mutable.nosystemd, mutable.nopam,
mutable.nokrb5, mutable.nonls, mutable.noselinux, etc.
> > If the nosystemd profile is (exceptionally) allowed to cause functional
> > changes, what would the policy be for this build profile? Would it be
> > acceptable for a package built with nosystemd to be unusable or have
> > incompatible behaviour if it is used on a system booted with systemd?
> I think that is up to the derivative to define.
Yes and no. When we specified that specific build-profiles are
distribution policies, that means that whoever defines those
build-profiles specifies their semantics. In case downstream want to
integrate those upstream (that is, Debian for example), then we'd
need to collectively agree on the semantics. But if a downstream or
independent project defines their own profiles, because they use their
own packaging or diverge w/o problem, then they can do whatever they
Given the background of build-profiles, I'm very much in favor of
introducing the equivalent usage as Gentoo USE flags, which was its
main intention! :) It could make Debian a viable source-based
distribution to use or base on, could make many of the embedded specific
distribution solutions obsolete, and might make some downstreams life
easier. Of course using one of these mutable profiles might imply some
kind of flag day for their users, because either everything you want to
use is annotated or the dependency system might be broken, but given that
Debian does not enable any build-profiles by default, that'd be safe for
TBH, I think several of us have had that in the backburner for some time,
but were testing the waters in the project with something tangible first
with bootstrapping. Because introducing this kind of disruptive change in
Debian might feel traumatic if rushing it too much. :)