Armin K. wrote: > 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?
> 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? That's major surgery to both LFS and BLFS. My understanding is that all the LFS/BLFS bootscripts would have to be changed or supplemented. I personally don't want it in BLFS, but I'm not the only vote. If there is interest, I suggest either a hint or an article in the lfsblog first and then see the response to that. What is the advantage again for systemd? Binary logs? systemd has 142K lines of C source code. sysv has 10K lines of C plus about 2K lines of shell scripts (probably about half of the scripts are comments and blank lines). The major disadvantage, as I see it, is a significant amount of complexity. And I don't know what problems it is trying to solve. Another disadvantage is that you can't boot with init=/bin/bash. When you do have a boot problem, how do you fix it? I'd wait until Debian makes it the default. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
