On 01/21/2013 07:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: > >> I've been using (pure (no bootscripts)) systemd for the past 4 months >> when I upgraded to LFS 7.2, and I'm quite happy with it. I don't see >> what all the negative fuss with it was all about. > > We try to explain what is going on with the boot process. Systemd makes > it opaque. See http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html > > It especially violates the first rule: > > "Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh > rather than complicate old programs by adding new features." > >> The reason why I tried >> it out in the first place was due to three reasons. The fact that >> ConsoleKit was being deprecated, I didn't like the heavy customization >> of udev, > > What customization? We don't modify any code, just bypass autotools. > > and as of Gnome 3.8, I've heard that it will be a hard dependency. > > There are a lot of people dropping Gnome. I guess that will accelerate. > >> I must also say, that this has been the most stable system yet since the >> introduction of Gnome 3.0. I had issues with the occasional desktop >> freeze, but none since this latest build. >> >> I don't see why systemd cannot be included in BLFS as it is just another >> option. > > Do you want to write it? > > -- Bruce >
I can write and maintain it, but it will also require instructions to remove Udev extracted from systemd. Also, If we want to offer users to choose systemd as default, we will also need to provide instructions to completely remove sysvinit stuff installed by LFS. That would mean that we would also need "Systemd Units" apart from "Bootscript" on several packages' pages. Would you accept such package in BLFS? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
