On 03/25/14 11:22, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could > be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package > contents in the books, I see the following name collisions: > > systemd sysvinit eudev > udevd > udevadm udevadm > halt halt > init init > poweroff poweroff > reboot reboot > runlevel runlevel > shutdown shutdown > telinit telinit > > I don't know if udevd is missing from the systemd page or is really not > installed when doing a systemd build, but I suspect it has just been > omitted from the page. > > In any case, this cursory look indicates to me that both could be > installed with custom names and a script written to swap the names and > reboot to the desired system. I also suspect a sysV initialization > could use the systemd version of udev and eudev would not be necessary. > > I have not looked at boot scripts or possibly different build options in > other programs, but wanted to throw out the idea for comments. > > -- Bruce
First, let me say that I personally love that idea. I feel that LFS was kind of loosing sight of the primary goal by not introducing systemd. However, are you suggesting that LFS have optional instructions? That's not bad in itself, just that it has never been acceptable before. I especially like providing both methods (again, primary goal of LFS). Ag has already raised the same point about optional instructions before I completed this message. Also, I'm not sure about scripting the swap. By all means, provide the instructions to switch, but leave the scripting to the user IMO. What about BLFS? Install both sysvinit and unit files from the single install target from the bootscripts tarball? I'm unfamiliar with the sysvinit compatibility in systemd, never had a need for it. --DJ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
