• devuan-packages
  • cups
  • Issues
  • #1

Closed
Open
Opened 2015-06-14T05:49Z by Daniel Reurich @CenturionDan

systemd removal

I've gone through the patches and identified the key patches that apply systemd bindings on cups. Hopefully these can be reverted cleanly to give us a systemd free version of cups.

All these patches should be reviewed, and reversions should be in order from top to bottom (reverse of the order they are applied). There a couple noted that may be incidental (fixes an issue that was found to effect systemd particularly, but may also have effected non-systemd), and a couple that seemed to mix systemd patches with non-systemd related patches.

The commitish id's from latest to earliest are:

-- 4fdcc872 --

-- dbcc76b8 --

aaccc368

f9106fd9

12a1e378

caa1388c

925c3341 - needs review

39313d52 - needs review

1f5b8720

a2ef5c19

0c7f98e7

3733922f - possible unrelated

0bf58080

30e07c77

7669d03d

3c715b76

a71f7597

77087e33

fec946fa

Please solve the reCAPTCHA

We want to be sure it is you, please confirm you are not a robot.

  • Jaret Cantu
    Jaret Cantu @jaretcantu · 2015-06-14T14:32Z

    Is removing a patch which checks for a systemd configuration file really necessary? If systemd isn't installed, none of these bits of code will run. It is only creating more work and a maintenance burden.

    I just tried removing the references to systemd from the debian/ files, and cups built fine. I don't have a printer at home, so the most I can do is access the web server.

    Are there only problems with versions newer than jessie and cups/systemd? 'Cause jessie seems fine.

  • Jaromil
    Jaromil @jaromil · 2015-06-15T09:49Z

    Jaret is right in asking, removing a patch that checks for a configuration file to add support to systemd at compile time, or even removing a patch that checks for it at runtime, is not necessary. We need to change the less as possible in these packages, to ease future maintainability. What we need to address is exclusive requirement of systemd and default build settings.

    If a patch is removed because necessary to change the default build settings in /debian, then it makes sense. The upstream code shouldn't need any modification in such a case.

  • Daniel Reurich
    Daniel Reurich @CenturionDan · 2015-06-15T09:54Z

    From what I've seen the way systemd is implemented and maintained, it may be easier to start with the cups upstream and the pre-systemd /debian and maintain our our own version. The problem with leaving these bits of code that don't run there is that it leaves room for later rebases to silently turn those bits of code into subtle bugs. I'm happy for others to take this on though and do it their way. I just pulled it in to have a look see and reported what I saw...

  • Jaromil
    Jaromil @jaromil · 2015-06-15T17:19Z

    At a closer look, your scenario seems rather possible, as many changes are occurring.

    Still I wouldn't go revert everything, but see if a simple change of configure flags and package deps produces a working cups for sysvinit systems.

  • Daniel Reurich
    Daniel Reurich @CenturionDan · 2015-12-01T02:17Z

    done

  • Daniel Reurich @CenturionDan Status changed to closed · 2015-12-01T02:17Z

    Status changed to closed