On 05/12/2013 09:35 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Armin K. wrote: > >> The GNOME/GTK+ Project packages are becoming outdated and newer >> package that are adjusted for them seem to be more or less "failing" >> with older ones (See several NetworkManager threads on blfs-support). On >> the other side, I use Systemd and my system isn't anymore compatible >> with any of the desktops (I can only check if they work with Systemd not >> with ConsoleKit). >> >> I want to propose a systemd branch for BLFS, where we (for now, I) can >> upgrade all packages that now depend on Systemd and make existing ones >> work with it, too. > > I'd like to make an alternative proposal. How about removing those > packages from BLFS (e.g. Gnome) that need systemd and putting them into > a separate document that references the main BLFS packages as needed. > There are many packages in BLFS that do not need or use systemd, but can > be used in a systemd environment. Doing the work of maintaining > packages in two documents seems counterproductive to me. Links between > separate packages are not unreasonable. There are several links in LFS > to BLFS. > > The reason I do not want to use systemd in LFS is because it makes the > boot process opaque. I think presenting what happens during boot is an > important educational goal of LFS. Being able to read short bash > scripts and using separate programs like syslogd accomplishes that goal > much more simply and visibly than systemd. There are also many parts of > systemd that are simply not required in a linux system, but are there to > support only large multi-user systems (e.g. cgroups). A basic system > just does not need resource limiting, prioritization, accounting, and > controlling of groups. > > If a course was given that explained the Linux system using LFS, a > second course explaining systemd and other advanced concepts such as > initrd, raid, lvm, security, etc would build on the base concepts. > >> If possible, I'd like to host systemd branch on LFS servers - just on >> another repository (like done for LFS). > > Is that needed? We can do that, but a branch seems easier to me. The > thing that would be needed is to publicize the branch on the website. > We really haven't done that for the systemd version of LFS either. > > BTW, the reason I haven't been doing more for BLFS is because you have > been doing such a good job. If you want me to take more on, I can do that. > > -- Bruce >
A systemd blfs branch would be fine since we already have systemd lfs branch. There is no need to reference it anywhere on the main site - just an initial announcement should be fine. As for the GNOME, I think that 3.8 could be made to work without systemd (minus some functionality - not sure which one) but as I said, I am systemd user and I am not going to put the effort into making packages that depend on systemd work without it. I can still maintain both of BLFS branches like Matt does for LFS and LFS Systemd (merging changes that don't conflict with other ones), but some help is always welcome - there are packages out of date that I don't or won't maintain (not using them or such). -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
