On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:32:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I'd like to discuss the direction of LFS with respect to where upstream > developers appear to be going. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html > For the moment (I really don't have the time to look at the other things), just a few comments on systemd -
1. It seems to be based on an idea of 'do not be afraid to change everything, even if it's not broken'. What eventually emerges might be brilliant, but there will probably be some blind alleys along the way. 2. We also need to look at how supportable it is - sysvinit is well understood, and the bootscripts are reasonably straightforward (I'm not talking about the scripts that LFS ships, rather the changes needed for packages that aren't in either book). 3. The latest change is a binary format in the logs, or journals - apparently this format may change [ that's based on a quick skim of lwn.net, interrupted by trying, and failing, to ignore the comments from the systemd fan boys ]. Changing the log format sounds like the sort of flag day that I don't look forward to. 4. If it gains widespread support, we should consider it. If it is just the latest thing for fedora employees to play with, I suggest that anyone who is interested in it should maintain a hint from which the rest of us can learn. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
