Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:22:33 -0500
- From: Michael Stone <mstone@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:35:30AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
At times, Ubuntu needs to avoid certain build-dependencies because they would add an unwanted "universe" binary dependency to a "main" package. In some cases, that is the *only* change Ubuntu makes to the package. I believe it benefits Debian for Ubuntu and Debian packaging to be as shared as much as possible. https://launchpad.net/bugs/1734339
$64k question: does having to maintain some notion of which build profiles to use for a package (and actually maintaining the build profile upstream) end up being less effort than a couple of lines of patch to remove a dependency?
Mike Stone
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- From: Simon McVittie
- Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- From: Wookey
- Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- From: Steve Langasek
- Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- From: Michael Stone
- Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- From: Hleb Valoshka
- Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- From: Wookey
- (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
- From: Johannes Schauer
- Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
- From: Jeremy Bicha
- Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile
- Prev by Date: ITP: debos -- Debian OS builder
- Next by Date: Re: ITP: go-flags -- go command line option parser
- Previous by thread: Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
- Next by thread: Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)
- Index(es):