Re: Debian Buster release to partially drop non-systemd support
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:22:56 +0200
- From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Debian Buster release to partially drop non-systemd support
Paul Wise writes:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 7:30 PM Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>> As long as people choose to strip of dependencies to libsystemd from
>> packages like util-linux, avoiding a fork would not work with how Debian
>> and Debian based distributions are built.
> It might be feasible to introduce nosystemd build profiles to Debian
> source packages and then create a shed/bikeshed/PPA (once that
> infrastructure exists) that contains rebuilds using that build
Why should Debian spend resources on implementing and maintaining the
changes needed for the "systemd is cancer" trip of the Devuan lead
Should Debian also support "noalsa", "noavahi", "nocups",
"nopulseaudio", "nosysvinit", "nodbus", "nopam", "nowayland",
... profiles because there are people who do not like these projects and
would like to not see them used?
Or an "ubuntu" build profile so Ubuntu can merge all their changes
(branding, Ubuntu-specific choices, integration, ...) and would no
longer have to rebase them?
If one really cares about which shared libraries one wants to use, this
is *much* easier in source-based distributions such as Gentoo which
already have implemented this (USE flags).
See https://www.gentoo.org/support/use-flags/ for more build profiles ;-)
(The nosystemd build profile was already suggested in the past.)
> That would allow Devuan's libsystemd stripping to be
> completely merged into Debian source packages and infrastructure. I
> guess Devuan have other changes that might be easier or harder to
> merge too though.
And if we also build packages for them, they wouldn't even have to fix
their package-building infrastructure which seems to no longer work for
some time already now ;-) (A datapoint for how much interest in working
on stuff there is?)
But why spend work on implementing and, more importantly, maintaining
all of this for a derivative distribution which already had 498 active
developers(!) back in 2015 according to a presentation by Devuan
developer Alberto Zuin and Devuan founder Jaromil, and which represents
an exodus for half of the active Debian user base (according to a Devuan
lead developer in a publication in 2018)? They certainly should have