On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
> augustin wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Thank you Mattias, Emanuele and Bruce for your answers and discussion on >> this >> topic. >> >> Meanwhile, I have also read a lot more on the internet on the heated >> debates >> regarding sysvinit vs. upstart vs. systemd (see list of links at the >> bottom). >> >> Some of my original concerns have not yet been addressed, as far as LFS >> and >> BLFS are concerned. And now that I understand the underlying debate a bit >> better, here is an update: >> >> >> The LFS project is educative in nature. The LFS "vi. Prerequisites" >> section >> does not stipulate that the LFS reader be aware of the whole architecture, >> including the init framework. Au contraire, it is the stated purpose of >> the >> project to educate the reader of such technical choices. Thus, the books >> and >> the web site shouldn't assume that the visitor knows what systemd is. I >> didn't. >> > > First, don't top post! > > Second, LFS can't possibly cover every possible void in knowledge of every > user. When in doubt, take the first choice. > > > This was my very first concern: we are given the choice between "BLFS" and >> "BLFS systemd" without being explained what this choice entails. >> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/read.html >> This concern has not been addressed in the discussion so far. >> >> >> The second major concern is the books' layout. Why two BLFS books? >> As Emanuele pointed out, systemd belongs more to LFS than to BLFS. >> > > Because systemd is incompatible with LFS. Hence > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable-systemd/ > > >> I finally figured out that Sysvinit is installed in LFS: >> 6.57. Sysvinit-2.88dsf >> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter06/sysvinit.html >> while its replacement systemd is installed in its own version of BLFS. >> >> This is inconsistent. The choice of init framework should logically be >> discussed in a single place, probably a dedicated chapter in LFS, which >> incidentally should reduce the overhead of maintaining two whole only >> partially different BLFS books (a current choice that I still don't >> understand). >> > > We tried that about 6 months ago and gave up. systemd is a cancer that > infiltrates everything. > > Besides, from all the reading I have just made, it is now obvious to me >> that >> sysvinit is on its way out, being replaced (and often having been >> replaced a >> long time ago) by either upstart and systemd, either of which are way >> better >> for modern computing than sysvinit. The debate was not whether or not to >> keep >> sysvinit but by what to replace it with. And it seems that systemd has >> won all >> the most recent battles, if not the war. Debian is adopting systemd, and >> Ubuntu follows suit by abandoning its own child, upstart, in favour of >> systemd, to comply with upstream. >> > > Systemd is not a part of the Linux Standards Base. System V is. > > Note that systemd is much more complex than System V. sysvinit is about > 10K lines of code. The user has complete control. The LFS instantiation > has about 2K lines of bash scripts to support it. > > systemd is, the last time I looked, about 150K lines of code, requires > packages like dbus that are not needed on most servers, and does not allow > the user to remove unneeded facilities. Many people call that bloat. > > LFS 7.6 having just been released, I think it would be worthwhile to >> consider >> addressing all of the above in the 7.7 version. >> >> We should: >> > > What do you mean "we"? > > - discontinue "BLFS systemd" but keep a single, unified BLFS book (easier >> maintenance of the book). >> >> - dedicate a whole section within LFS to introduce and discuss the choice >> of >> init frameworks. >> > > You are welcome to write a hint. > > -- Bruce > > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > Augustin, A very complex hint is being currently developed to bring another init system to LFS, namely Runit from our project runit-for-lfs over at GoogleCode: https://code.google.com/p/runit-for-lfs While Runit is not part of the LSB baseline, it is a UNIX alternative that aims to only replace small sections of the standard system-v book without requiring a lot of "extras" brought in by systemd, and allowing parallel service launching, simplified and faster boot times, and easy to use bootscripts. The project aims to replace only small portions of the system-v book such as sysvinit, lfs-bootscripts, and even parts of blfs-bootscripts, and several sections of BLFS chapter 3 only without breaking the system ina single bootscripts package for LFS and BLFS for now. We may even look into CBLFS/CLFS eventually if time permits. However, let me make this perfectly clear, this hint is still in testing stages, possibly by our accounts "beta to rc level" class, as some issues still need ironing out. It is not intended for general usage as some of the service run files have a few bugs to work out, mostly due to the fact many of the service run files have been imported from other distributions, or are simply handcrafted by deciphering the system-v scripts carefully. When we get the full project released as intended, we will as normal submit the hint and all necessary files to Bruce and crew, and go from there. While systemd is out there, at least the authors of LFS have been more than kind enough to not only keep the system-v book ongoing and keep in line with LSB standardizations, but have offered a systemd book also for those curious about it. It's just another path to take on the GNU/Linux road, just like system-v, runit, OpenRC, etc. Even if systemd is about anti-choice, LFS is still about choice, and we should be thankful to Bruce, Armin, and crew for that ability to choose. Thanks.
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
