On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:59 AM, Marvin Gülker <m-guel...@phoenixmail.de> wrote: > > With Arch, it's different. The no-systemd people need to run after all > cahnges made by the Arch team, and then place their own changes on top > of that. This creates certainly a lot of work, and certainly requires a > lot of manpower, which I am not sure these people have available. This, > in consequence, leads me to security considerations. How quickly do > security problem fixes propagate to arch-openrc?
Honestly, as somebody who monitors all the systemd bugs on Gentoo it isn't actually that much work, and I suspect that it wouldn't be that much work maintaining openrc scripts on Arch. I doubt they rename the apache binary 3x per year, or move its location around the filesystem. If anything systemd is a bit more of a moving target since we started with distro-built scripts and have largely moved towards upstream-provided ones, while also dealing with changes in systemd itself (the latter has more to do with support for more features or changes in conventions than actual breakage). Now, systemd on Gentoo vs openrc on Arch might not be equivalent, since on Gentoo we are a bit more accustomed to heterogeneous environments and the way we maintain packages is structured around this. Systemd on Gentoo also has the advantage of more upstream support, since a LOT of packages have upstream-provided units that get installed by the build scripts. -- Rich
