Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Jan 21, 2011 5:42 PM, "Ray Rashif"  wrote:
>
> On 22 January 2011 05:30, C Anthony Risinger  wrote:
> > ... because arch users are encouraged to help solve their own
> > problems; whats your goal exactly?
>
> Are you on a provoking rampage? Because my goal was to simply give you
> some feedback for this topic you brought up. If that can even be a
> goal. Looking at Tom's reply was much more worthwhile. You probably
> thought I was trying to undermine the validity of your points running
> across this topic - which was not the case at all.

OK fair enough; I may have misinterpreted a bit.  The "I don't want to know"
stuff didn't resonate well with me, esp.  since you didn't provide any
logs/etc. so I got a different impression.  My apologies if that's the
case...

Yeah I guess I may have rampaged a bit.  It's frustrating to see ideas
trampled on for reasons holding little if any merit; many feel like leaps of
faith to hang on? To what? Much work has gone into this from all sides for
the improvement of everyone, and warrants some respect.

No worries.

> > the point of systemd is to make ALL of our lives easier, not more
difficult.
>
> Right. Anyway, you might want to realise that nobody who "matters" has
> had - up to this point - anything to say about "switching to systemd".
> Mostly because none of them have the time (so there is still hope).
> You can always file an FR in the tracker if you want to gain some
> progress for your enthusiasm, or even get an ultimatum.

I swear there was one in there already, will have to check.

Good idea!  This thread may have outlived it's usefulness; I hope many have
a better understanding at the least (and the thread itself was a play on the
upstart thread if its not obvious ;-) because there are many interesting
applications to an intelligent init.

C Anthony [mobile]

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Yaro Kasear]

On Friday, January 21, 2011 06:10:02 pm Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> > If it isn't broken, don't fix it. We put grub2 in [extra], not [core],
> > for the same reason we really should put systemd in [extra] and not
> > [core].
> 
> Don't get me wrong, but no one is putting anything anywhere. This is
> not a voting. The decision of bringing any package to the official
> repos is exclusively on the shoulders of a developer willing to
> maintain it. So all the discussion about entering or not is moot.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm enjoying the articles very much. The comments
> on each blog post are very enlightening. It even shows that Lennart
> has more patience than I would have... I've seen it being bashed
> without any reason and yet answer politely.
> 
> One very inspiring comment by Lennart, that sums up a lot of my own
> thoughts is:
> 
> "... you are right, systemd is nothing like traditional Unix. And that
> is a good thing. Unix has been designed 41 years ago. You honestly
> believe that its design is perfect and flawless and 41 years after it
> was designed still should be followed in all detail? No, computers
> changed, and Unix never was perfect. It probably was a better design
> than most other operating systems, but this does not mean it is
> perfect and we should never depart from it."
> 
> So, maybe we could tackle this discussion with an open mind, instead
> of being so zealots about what you already know. Remember, you didn't
> born knowing Linux. You can learn other things too :) I'm happy with
> the thread, because I'm having a good time reading about systemd. I'll
> try it in a few moments and see what it gives. Thanks Risinger for the
> links and Tom for the packages :)

I have nothing against change. Change for the sake of it being a change, on 
the other hand...

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Denis A . Altoé Falqueto]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> If it isn't broken, don't fix it. We put grub2 in [extra], not [core], for the
> same reason we really should put systemd in [extra] and not [core].

Don't get me wrong, but no one is putting anything anywhere. This is
not a voting. The decision of bringing any package to the official
repos is exclusively on the shoulders of a developer willing to
maintain it. So all the discussion about entering or not is moot.

On the other hand, I'm enjoying the articles very much. The comments
on each blog post are very enlightening. It even shows that Lennart
has more patience than I would have... I've seen it being bashed
without any reason and yet answer politely.

One very inspiring comment by Lennart, that sums up a lot of my own thoughts is:

"... you are right, systemd is nothing like traditional Unix. And that
is a good thing. Unix has been designed 41 years ago. You honestly
believe that its design is perfect and flawless and 41 years after it
was designed still should be followed in all detail? No, computers
changed, and Unix never was perfect. It probably was a better design
than most other operating systems, but this does not mean it is
perfect and we should never depart from it."

So, maybe we could tackle this discussion with an open mind, instead
of being so zealots about what you already know. Remember, you didn't
born knowing Linux. You can learn other things too :) I'm happy with
the thread, because I'm having a good time reading about systemd. I'll
try it in a few moments and see what it gives. Thanks Risinger for the
links and Tom for the packages :)

-- 
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?

---
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
---

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Yaro Kasear]

On Friday, January 21, 2011 05:42:17 pm Ray Rashif wrote:
(snip)
> > indeed, and i'd mostly agree.  however while im not a developer for
> > archlinux, i wouldnt waste time on obsolete systems when a better
> > alternative saves me time; you may end up maintaining the initscripts
> > yourself.  keep that in mind.
> > 
> > the point of systemd is to make ALL of our lives easier, not more
> > difficult.
> 
> Right. Anyway, you might want to realise that nobody who "matters" has
> had - up to this point - anything to say about "switching to systemd".
> Mostly because none of them have the time (so there is still hope).
> You can always file an FR in the tracker if you want to gain some
> progress for your enthusiasm, or even get an ultimatum.

I should also point out that simplicity as defined by Arch is not about making 
the life of the user easier, but for making the SYSTEM simpler. Again, systemd 
doesn't fit with that model at all.

You can read that right on the wiki.

You think SysV Init is a pile? Fine, install systemd. I think it belongs in 
[extra] in the best of times. There's really no good reason to make it part of 
base in [core] when all it does is something udev and hal do already, and a 
feature only a minority of Arch users are likely to actually use 
(RAID/LVM/Encryption support, while useful or even popular, can't honestly be 
in the majority of Arch installs.) 

This wasn't aimed at you, Ray, but the guy you were responding, but you were 
makign some good points on your own?

Have I also mentioned that despite all the features systemd might bring, it's 
still unnecessary in light of the fact that SysVInit with initscripts STILL 
works perfectly fine?

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. We put grub2 in [extra], not [core], for the 
same reason we really should put systemd in [extra] and not [core].

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Ray Rashif]

On 22 January 2011 05:30, C Anthony Risinger  wrote:
> ok, so what went wrong?  your sure you did everything correctly?  more
> info would be needed to help you.

Thank you, but I can help myself if I want to pursue this, when I have
the time to pursue this. The point was to check how far it was in the
integration. No more, no less.

> h now i see. maybe you meant to post here:
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/ :-)
>
> ... because arch users are encouraged to help solve their own
> problems; whats your goal exactly?

Are you on a provoking rampage? Because my goal was to simply give you
some feedback for this topic you brought up. If that can even be a
goal. Looking at Tom's reply was much more worthwhile. You probably
thought I was trying to undermine the validity of your points running
across this topic - which was not the case at all.

> "KISS, #2 in the top ten list of misunderstood/abused/regurgitated concepts."

Sorry, but I think I know KISS when I see KISS.

> let me get this straight, you tried once, it didn't work once, so now
> it's garbage?  you must think the whole AUR is garbage too then?  or
> what?

No. I tried it for all its hype, to _inspect_ what "systemd"
comprises, to get the general idea. No more, no less.

> well luckily i don't think they run a democracy around here ;-)

Of course, they don't. Either way I would have nothing to gain or
lose. It is just a personal opinion.

> indeed, and i'd mostly agree.  however while im not a developer for
> archlinux, i wouldnt waste time on obsolete systems when a better
> alternative saves me time; you may end up maintaining the initscripts
> yourself.  keep that in mind.
>
> the point of systemd is to make ALL of our lives easier, not more difficult.

Right. Anyway, you might want to realise that nobody who "matters" has
had - up to this point - anything to say about "switching to systemd".
Mostly because none of them have the time (so there is still hope).
You can always file an FR in the tracker if you want to gain some
progress for your enthusiasm, or even get an ultimatum.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Ray Rashif  wrote:
> On 22 January 2011 01:53, C Anthony Risinger  wrote:
>> oh... my.  there is too much  to respond properly
>> so i'll try touch a couple [several] things ...
>>
>> ... why the resistance at all? let me reiterate this nce and slow:
>>
>> SYSVINIT HAS NO POWER, NO FUNCTIONALITY, AND ABSOLUTELY ZERO
>> USEFULNESS ON IT'S OWN.
>
> I just tried systemd. And it just failed.

ok, so what went wrong?  your sure you did everything correctly?  more
info would be needed to help you.

> I don't want to know
> anything else, and I don't want to find out why.

h now i see. maybe you meant to post here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/ :-)

... because arch users are encouraged to help solve their own
problems; whats your goal exactly?

> Just looking at its
> underlying framework without having to make it run successfully is
> enough to get the point across - it is _not_ KISS.

"KISS, #2 in the top ten list of misunderstood/abused/regurgitated concepts."

let me get this straight, you tried once, it didn't work once, so now
it's garbage?  you must think the whole AUR is garbage too then?  or
what?

> If it ever comes to
> development attention to "adopt as default" or "replace sysvinit", I
> will personally cast a negative vote.

well luckily i don't think they run a democracy around here ;-)

> With that said, I am all for dynamic systems. I may even use systemd
> personally in the future. We use Arch Linux, so we can do what we want
> with our systems. What the "default" is doesn't really matter. The
> packages get my vote.

indeed, and i'd mostly agree.  however while im not a developer for
archlinux, i wouldnt waste time on obsolete systems when a better
alternative saves me time; you may end up maintaining the initscripts
yourself.  keep that in mind.

the point of systemd is to make ALL of our lives easier, not more difficult.

C Anthony

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Tom Gundersen]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Ray Rashif  wrote:
> I just tried systemd. And it just failed. I don't want to know
> anything else, and I don't want to find out why.

To everyone trying out systemd, please keep in mind that the arch
integration has not received a lot of testing yet, so don't expect it
to "just work". It does for me (and other people working working on
systemd and Arch integration, as far as I know), but I guess there are
lots of cases that we have not tried yet. Any detailed descriptions of
failures would be highly appreciated.

> Just looking at its
> underlying framework without having to make it run successfully is
> enough to get the point across - it is _not_ KISS.

I think this depends on your point of view. For an administrator, user
or arch developer, the simplicity should be no less than with
initscripts. Depending on what exactly you are doing, I would argue
that usually it is much simpler (in the worst case scenario, you can
always just use your old arch configuration files and everything will
work the same (fingers crossed...)).

The complexity only becomes an issue if you want to do systemd
development, but I guess that most people will not do that, and
requiring all users to understand the internal workings of all the
software they use is a bit ambitious (I certainly don't). What should
matter is the simplicity of software's external interfaces (like
configuration files, behavior, etc).

Thanks to everyone who's taking a look at the systemd packages,
apologies to anyone whose babies it eats.

Tom

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

bravo, sir.  i'll throw you one last bone, because your track record
in this conversation is one of severe inability to comprehend any
information presented.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> On Friday, January 21, 2011 11:53:22 am C Anthony Risinger wrote:
>> oh... my.  there is too much  to respond properly
>> so i'll try touch a couple [several] things ...
>>
>> ... why the resistance at all? let me reiterate this nce and slow:
>
> Because it's completely unnecessary.

of course; i don't know why anyone would want the only process capable
of babysitting to actually babysit. hm..

>> SYSVINIT HAS NO POWER, NO FUNCTIONALITY, AND ABSOLUTELY ZERO
>> USEFULNESS ON IT'S OWN.
>>
>> the "unix philosophy" (debatable in itself...) of doing one thing
>> doesn't usually translate to LITERALLY DOING ONE THING.
>>
>> please please please, please, read that several times until it sinks
>> in nice and deep; every single argument about sysvinit's "simplicity",
>> "maturity", blah blah, woka woka, etc etc, and anything else related
>> to it's stability is complete nonsense because ...
>>
>> YOUR BOOT PROCESS IS A MEGAMATRON SHELL SCRIPT, AND HAS PEANUTS TO DO
>> WITH INIT; IN FACT, INIT IS NOT EVEN NEEDED.
>
> Some form of init is still needed even if the initscripts are glorified shell
> scripts. What do you think has to RUN those shell scripts for them to be of
> any use at all?

ehm... you can just point `init=/some/shell/script` and have that
shell script source the normal rc.* files; make it `trap` the INT and
PWR signals and ZOMFG you have a complete "sysvinit" in bash
in about 15 lines.

take a look at how the ramfs boot works, because it does exactly this.

> Hell, even without a single initscript, an init system STILL needs to be in
> place. That's just how UNIX works

the kernel just needs something to run.  and it actually pretty much
always runs /init... the initramfs later on passes the `init`
parameter within /proc/cmdline to switch_root for exec'ing.

> SysV Init is simple, which is what Arch is all about.

i'm sorry but your incredibly wrong.  again, for the 700th time,
sysvinit does nothing.  all functionality is in shell scripts.  please
stop chanting this because i'm about 95% sure that the kinds of people
who are capable of actually writing these scripts would agree, if this
thread is any indication of that.

>> capisce?  good.  now we can move on and give up this pointless cling
>> to something that provides us nothing WHATSOEVER.
>
> It provides us with a solid reliable way to boot our system and manage what
> runs at boot time. Anything more than that is luxury and unnecessary.

there is nothing solid or incredibly reliable about bash; read a
comprehensive doc detailing all the things that affect it's execution.
 and... uhm manage??  at what point does init do this again?
h, you mean rc.d scripts?  did i just say scripts?  yes, scripts.

so, not init.  bash.  custom.  share-nothing.

>> systemd is superior in every single way imaginable.
>
> This is a matter of opinion. Not fact.

right, if your braindead.  like sysvinit :-)

>> that is the pure
>> and simple truth; it's not even an arguable point.
>
> I am arguing it, therefore it is arguable.

well that's circular reasoning if i dun ever saw'ed it.  nice.

>> many of the
>> "concerns" here are already answered/clarified higher up in the
>> thread, or are nothing more than FUD and personal grudges against a
>> guy who seems to SIMPLY WANTS TO IMPROVE THINGS AND DOESN'T CARE IF
>> YOU WANT TO USE SYSVINIT FOR 60 MORE YEARS.
>
> I doubt that. Again, to use Pulse Audio as an exabmple, he's stated he wanted
> it to take ALSA's place many times. He may not have said it about systemd, but
> there's no reason, none, to believe he doesn't expect it to replace SysV init
> on most Linux distributions.

as it should.  sysvinit is next to worthless.  recognize this.
computers should do more for us as time goes on; it's not exactly a
novel idea.

>> systemd solves real
>> user/business problems, and whether or not you/me/us make personal use
>> of every single possible feature is irrelevant.
>
> And those problems are...? So far even those further up in this thread haven't
> described any real problems aside from certain inconvient things about the
> Arch Initscripts, which are fixable without introduce a needlessly complex
> init replacement.

@#$@#$ please see the numerous links in the first post that
you most certainly have not visited.

>> these sentiments are echoed throughout most of community.
>
> Are they? Please back up this assertion with facts instead of unsubstantiated
> rants.

read: consistency/reliability/transparency/control

this is what the community wants.  sysvinit does not provide.  see the
many good posts by Tom.

>> systemd has  binaries?? yeah, and?  so what?  take a
>> hard look at the precious sysvinit "suite"; you'll find 1700 external
>> calls to grep, sed, awk, cut, ..., ..

Re: [arch-general] python2-qt dependency typo

[David C. Rankin]

On 01/21/2011 01:40 PM, Andrea Scarpino wrote:

First of all, you must use flyspray to report any bug about official Arch Linux
packages.
In second, I really don't understand how you missed this[1] on*your*
discussion.

[1]http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2011-
January/018070.html



Blind in one eye and can't see out of the other I guess :p

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Ray Rashif]

On 22 January 2011 01:53, C Anthony Risinger  wrote:
> oh... my.  there is too much  to respond properly
> so i'll try touch a couple [several] things ...
>
> ... why the resistance at all? let me reiterate this nce and slow:
>
> SYSVINIT HAS NO POWER, NO FUNCTIONALITY, AND ABSOLUTELY ZERO
> USEFULNESS ON IT'S OWN.

I just tried systemd. And it just failed. I don't want to know
anything else, and I don't want to find out why. Just looking at its
underlying framework without having to make it run successfully is
enough to get the point across - it is _not_ KISS. If it ever comes to
development attention to "adopt as default" or "replace sysvinit", I
will personally cast a negative vote.

With that said, I am all for dynamic systems. I may even use systemd
personally in the future. We use Arch Linux, so we can do what we want
with our systems. What the "default" is doesn't really matter. The
packages get my vote.

Re: [arch-general] python2-qt dependency typo

[Andrea Scarpino]

On Friday 21 January 2011 13:30:11 David C. Rankin wrote:
>   Probably not worth a bug, unless you want one filed, but the python2-qt
> python-opengl dependency is missing an 'o' in opengl (see e.g. python-pengl
> below)):
> 
> New optional dependencies for python2-qt
>  python-pengl: enable OpenGL 3D graphics in PyQt applications
>  qscintilla: QScintilla API
First of all, you must use flyspray to report any bug about official Arch Linux 
packages.
In second, I really don't understand how you missed this[1] on *your* 
discussion.

[1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2011-
January/018070.html

-- 
Andrea

[arch-general] python2-qt dependency typo

[David C. Rankin]

Guys,

	Probably not worth a bug, unless you want one filed, but the python2-qt 
python-opengl dependency is missing an 'o' in opengl (see e.g. python-pengl 
below)):


New optional dependencies for python2-qt
python-pengl: enable OpenGL 3D graphics in PyQt applications
qscintilla: QScintilla API


--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Yaro Kasear]

On Friday, January 21, 2011 11:53:22 am C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> oh... my.  there is too much  to respond properly
> so i'll try touch a couple [several] things ...
> 
> ... why the resistance at all? let me reiterate this nce and slow:
> 

Because it's completely unnecessary.

> SYSVINIT HAS NO POWER, NO FUNCTIONALITY, AND ABSOLUTELY ZERO
> USEFULNESS ON IT'S OWN.
> 
> the "unix philosophy" (debatable in itself...) of doing one thing
> doesn't usually translate to LITERALLY DOING ONE THING.
> 
> please please please, please, read that several times until it sinks
> in nice and deep; every single argument about sysvinit's "simplicity",
> "maturity", blah blah, woka woka, etc etc, and anything else related
> to it's stability is complete nonsense because ...
> 
> YOUR BOOT PROCESS IS A MEGAMATRON SHELL SCRIPT, AND HAS PEANUTS TO DO
> WITH INIT; IN FACT, INIT IS NOT EVEN NEEDED.
> 

Some form of init is still needed even if the initscripts are glorified shell 
scripts. What do you think has to RUN those shell scripts for them to be of 
any use at all?

Hell, even without a single initscript, an init system STILL needs to be in 
place. That's just how UNIX works

SysV Init is simple, which is what Arch is all about.

> capisce?  good.  now we can move on and give up this pointless cling
> to something that provides us nothing WHATSOEVER.

It provides us with a solid reliable way to boot our system and manage what 
runs at boot time. Anything more than that is luxury and unnecessary.

> 
> systemd is superior in every single way imaginable.

This is a matter of opinion. Not fact.

> that is the pure
> and simple truth; it's not even an arguable point. 

I am arguing it, therefore it is arguable.

> many of the
> "concerns" here are already answered/clarified higher up in the
> thread, or are nothing more than FUD and personal grudges against a
> guy who seems to SIMPLY WANTS TO IMPROVE THINGS AND DOESN'T CARE IF
> YOU WANT TO USE SYSVINIT FOR 60 MORE YEARS.

I doubt that. Again, to use Pulse Audio as an exabmple, he's stated he wanted 
it to take ALSA's place many times. He may not have said it about systemd, but 
there's no reason, none, to believe he doesn't expect it to replace SysV init 
on most Linux distributions.

> systemd solves real
> user/business problems, and whether or not you/me/us make personal use
> of every single possible feature is irrelevant.

And those problems are...? So far even those further up in this thread haven't 
described any real problems aside from certain inconvient things about the 
Arch Initscripts, which are fixable without introduce a needlessly complex 
init replacement.

> 
> these sentiments are echoed throughout most of community.

Are they? Please back up this assertion with facts instead of unsubstantiated 
rants.

> 
> systemd has  binaries?? yeah, and?  so what?  take a
> hard look at the precious sysvinit "suite"; you'll find 1700 external
> calls to grep, sed, awk, cut, ..., ... 

Those are core utilities, not the sysvinit suite. They're gonna be there 
whether or not we use SysV Init. And I bet even systemd would end up using 
them too in its units. 

> even if it mattered one tiny
> little bit, i'm pretty sure you'll exceed systemd's count in the first
> file or two.

Again, they're core utilities you'll find in ANY POSIX system. Just because 
SysV Init's scripts uses them is misleading and irrelevant and pointing this 
out is a blatant red herring.

> i've been thru the init scripts several times and ramfs
> init; i know.  just believe me.
> 

So am I. Your point has absolutely no value at all, as those utilities are not 
there for init's sake, but to make scripting at all useful. Switching to 
systemd wouldn't fix that one bit.

> why should init do "do almost nothing"??

Init decides what is run in what circumstances. That's ALL it needs to be. 
This is not a problem that needs to be fixed. Your argument is invalid.

> how many other applications
> do we slick developers write where the goal is to do a whole 'lotta
> nothing?  come on.  systemd doesn't step out of scope one bit;

Yes it does. Almost every one of systemd's features are completely unneeded 
for a fully functional boot process. Nothing systemd offers isn't already done 
with SysV Init and simple bootscripts.

> it's
> job is to reliably start, stop, and babysit processes with the
> parameters, environment, and constraints WE DEFINE. 

SysV Init does that too. Or have you not noticed the existence of 
/etc/inittab, /etc/rc.conf, or /etc.rc.local. Those three files alone already 
grant a finer amount of control over how Arch's boot process than systemd 
does. Let's not even touch on the "magical" things you can do with mkinitcpio.

Your rant stinks of someone who doesn't understand the first thing of how the 
Arch boot process actually works.

> that's it; feels
> pretty dang simple/kiss to me.  actually take a look at your boot
> process someday... then come back and drone on about how sl

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Sander Jansen]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Heiko Baums  wrote:
> Am Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:03:23 +0800
> schrieb Ng Oon-Ee :
>
>> This talk is probably a year or so out of date however. Try pulseaudio
>> now, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. You'd also have noticed
>> that actual bug reports on our forums/ML etc. concerning pulseaudio
>> have dropped to close to nil.
>
>
> 5. In the same article I read that systemd binds itself to port 80
> instead of starting apache at boottime and starts apache only if a
> request to port 80 comes in. This is not the task of an init system, and
> I have slight security concerns about that. If I tell the init system
> that I want apache being started then I want to have apache started at
> boottime or when I say so and not when systemd thinks it is needed.
> And this way systemd first needs to unbind itself from port 80 and then
> start apache and bind it to port 80. So if I open port 80 in my firewall
> this port is open without a software being bound to it, even if it's
> only a millisecond.
>

The same article also mentions this is hardly a new concept. inetd has
been capable and doing this for years. And guess what, you can
actually configure the desired behaviour. For example there are
currently two different unit files for sshd. One that just starts the
daemon, while the other one will only start if there's a incoming
connection.

https://github.com/falconindy/systemd-arch-units/blob/master/service/sshd.service
vs
https://github.com/falconindy/systemd-arch-units/blob/master/service/sshd%40.service

Cheers,

Sander

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[C Anthony Risinger]

oh... my.  there is too much  to respond properly
so i'll try touch a couple [several] things ...

... why the resistance at all? let me reiterate this nce and slow:

SYSVINIT HAS NO POWER, NO FUNCTIONALITY, AND ABSOLUTELY ZERO
USEFULNESS ON IT'S OWN.

the "unix philosophy" (debatable in itself...) of doing one thing
doesn't usually translate to LITERALLY DOING ONE THING.

please please please, please, read that several times until it sinks
in nice and deep; every single argument about sysvinit's "simplicity",
"maturity", blah blah, woka woka, etc etc, and anything else related
to it's stability is complete nonsense because ...

YOUR BOOT PROCESS IS A MEGAMATRON SHELL SCRIPT, AND HAS PEANUTS TO DO
WITH INIT; IN FACT, INIT IS NOT EVEN NEEDED.

capisce?  good.  now we can move on and give up this pointless cling
to something that provides us nothing WHATSOEVER.

systemd is superior in every single way imaginable.  that is the pure
and simple truth; it's not even an arguable point.  many of the
"concerns" here are already answered/clarified higher up in the
thread, or are nothing more than FUD and personal grudges against a
guy who seems to SIMPLY WANTS TO IMPROVE THINGS AND DOESN'T CARE IF
YOU WANT TO USE SYSVINIT FOR 60 MORE YEARS.  systemd solves real
user/business problems, and whether or not you/me/us make personal use
of every single possible feature is irrelevant.

these sentiments are echoed throughout most of community.

systemd has  binaries?? yeah, and?  so what?  take a
hard look at the precious sysvinit "suite"; you'll find 1700 external
calls to grep, sed, awk, cut, ..., ... even if it mattered one tiny
little bit, i'm pretty sure you'll exceed systemd's count in the first
file or two.  i've been thru the init scripts several times and ramfs
init; i know.  just believe me.

why should init do "do almost nothing"??  how many other applications
do we slick developers write where the goal is to do a whole 'lotta
nothing?  come on.  systemd doesn't step out of scope one bit; it's
job is to reliably start, stop, and babysit processes with the
parameters, environment, and constraints WE DEFINE.  that's it; feels
pretty dang simple/kiss to me.  actually take a look at your boot
process someday... then come back and drone on about how slick systemd
is.

so what if systemd requires the latest ?  that's what we
run around here.  nobody cares about a server running 
knows whatever version; just use sysvinit like usual... wait, what's
the argument again?

... really, drop everything about pulseaudio.  there are many many
people involved with both projects.  this has to be the single dumbest
argument imaginable.  i'd link to a list of fallacies again but it's
already been; do a search, then come back with real concerns.

nobody cares about how complex systemd might look to a user who has
neither read/understood the code nor even looked at the VERY COMPLETE
man pages.  this quite possibly rings in as the second dumbest
argument.  take a look at your kernel, what are we at, like 12 million
SLOC?  look at any decent software your using RIGHT NOW... what do you
find?  yup, code.  *gasp*

CK/PK are (AFAIK) advancements that let various CLI/GUI/UI/automated
tools perform dangerous tasks with high levels of control;  fine
grained permissions.  very few business problems are solved by coarse
unix permissions on the FS.  btw, introducing arguments with "i don't
know what X is, understand why it exists, nor have i even attempted to
realize why it might be useful, but it's total garbage because ... "
effectively destroys yourself before you've started.  developers write
software to solve problems, not chase pixies.

well it's time for a recess.  i'm am at a serious loss of words for
most of this; i fail to understand how one can competently arrive to
the conclusion that sysvinit is even close to the same skillset as
systemd... sysvinit is a fckn bench-warming waterboy whose only on the
team because he never graduated and his dad invented the sport 40
years ago.

so, look beyond the "boot", and read about systemd and the incredible
flexibility it provides before looking for the nearest rock to throw.
i suggest here again:

http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/systemd.exec.html
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/systemd.unit.html
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/systemd.service.html
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/systemd.socket.html
http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-man/systemd.mount.html

now, tell me how sysvinit provides even 5% of that functionality?
some of that i don't even know how to accomplish MANUALLY, and others
i don't even know WTF they do.

holy frustration batman.

C Anthony

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Yaro Kasear]

On Friday, January 21, 2011 07:43:55 am Lukáš Jirkovský wrote:
(snip)

> And as other people said – I'm afraid of systemd even more because it
> was written by the same person as Pulse Audio was. PA didn't work very
> well for quite a long time. I'm not going to argue about that (it's
> just my personal opinion and none of you will change it), but I just
> don't believe someone who wrote a piece of crap which took several
> years to become generally usable will suddenly write something so
> delightful so it can be used as a replacement of one of the most
> tested and most established things in Unix/Linux world.
> 

(snip)

That was my point. I have had far too many negative experiences with Pulse 
Audio, Avahi, etc, for me to completely trust systemd when we already have 
something that works fine, causes next to no problems, and all for a couple of 
features I don't really see us needing as being part of a default system (Not 
everyone uses RAID/LVM/Encryption. In fact, I don't even think most Arch users 
use it, so I doubly see no point in this.). systemd could maybe go into 
[extra], but being put into [core] as a part of base, even as something 
running in parrallel with SysV init, I just don't get it.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Rogutės Sparnuotos]

Tom Gundersen (2011-01-21 14:36):
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Karol Babioch  wrote:
> > Am 20.01.2011 14:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:>
> >> Anything in particular you have in mind? We are working towards
> >> complete backwards compatibility with initscripts, and we are more or
> >> less there (modulo unknown bugs).
> >
> > First of all I was talking about systemd as the default init system
> > within Arch.
> 
> I see. I misunderstood.
> 
> >> Any suggestions about what might make the installation easier? At the
> >> moment you have to install some packages from AUR and add a line to
> >> your GRUB file.
> >
> > I appreciate your work (and anyone who has helped you out a bit), but to
> > be honest its not the way I would think of an ideal solution :(. Right
> > now you have to install a few packages from AUR and run it in parallel
> > with sysvinit. I don't even know if there is a way to remove sysvinit,
> > but I would guess this wouldn't be easy.
> 
> At the moment removing sysvinit is not a goal. We are happy to see
> them peacefully co-exist. I expect this will continue being our goal
> as long as sysvinit is the default on Arch.
> 
> > Furthermore units are provided by a single package. I don't think thats
> > a good way, as I get a whole bunch of units I actually don't need.
> 
> This is a temporary solution until packages ship unit files upstream.
> I agree it is not ideal, but it is a simple solution for the time
> being (without much of a drawback, the unused unit files are not even
> parsed).
> 
> > All in all, its relatively easy to install systemd, because of the work
> > you and others have done, but it doesn't follow the KISS principle at all.
> 
> I agree that the temporary packaging solutions are not ideal, but it's
> the best we can do in the short run. However, none of these problems
> are fundamental, and if/when systemd is in widespread use, these
> problems will disappear.
> 
> > I guess, to make it really affordable it must be declared as official,
> > so the packages itself contain the units, replacing the sysvinit.
> 
> At the moment the intention is just to allow people to test systemd,
> so this would be quite premature.
> 
> Thanks for your comments.

Hmm, it's good for systemd to have found a maintainer with such a positive
attitude as yours :)
If you keep it up, I can imagine systemd entering community and/or
becoming the default. Hopefully not before it is ready - as this seems to
have been the main problem with pulseaudio.

-- 
--  Rogutės Sparnuotos

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Rogutės Sparnuotos]

Karol Babioch (2011-01-21 13:13):
> Am 20.01.2011 14:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:>
> > Any suggestions about what might make the installation easier? At the
> > moment you have to install some packages from AUR and add a line to
> > your GRUB file.
> 
> I appreciate your work (and anyone who has helped you out a bit), but to
> be honest its not the way I would think of an ideal solution :(. Right
> now you have to install a few packages from AUR and run it in parallel
> with sysvinit. I don't even know if there is a way to remove sysvinit,
> but I would guess this wouldn't be easy.

It is quite simple:
1. Ensure that you know how to boot without /sbin/init
2. Run pacman -R sysvinit initscripts

I have done this one year ago and am still alive.

> Furthermore units are provided by a single package. I don't think thats
> a good way, as I get a whole bunch of units I actually don't need.
> 
> All in all, its relatively easy to install systemd, because of the work
> you and others have done, but it doesn't follow the KISS principle at all.
> 
> I guess, to make it really affordable it must be declared as official,
> so the packages itself contain the units, replacing the sysvinit.

Why would you reply to a thread about Upstart to talk about systemd?
Anyway, systemd is far from done. Run from AUR if you need and wait until
it is at least stable and doesn't have dependencies like
util-linux-ng-git.

-- 
--  Rogutės Sparnuotos

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Rogutės Sparnuotos]

Sander Jansen (2011-01-20 19:09):
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 20, 2011 06:48:14 pm Sander Jansen wrote:
> > (snip)
> >>
> >> - It's nice you can install it next to sysv-init. This makes it really
> >> easy to test without breaking the system.
> >
> > You can do this? I might try it out. If it works as expected in its stage of
> > development, I'll quick being a jerk about it.
> >
> > Also, how does that work? Do you choose an init at some point?
> 
> See the wiki, it's a kernel boot parameter.

By default, Linux kernel runs /sbin/init as PID 1 (the first user level
process). This can be changed by adding init=/binary/to/run to the kernel
command line. The command line can be changed in the kernel config, in the
boot loader config or during boot in grub, lilo, syslinux, etc. For
example, in grub one sees "kernel /boot/vmlinuz26 root=/dev/sda5 ro". One
can append this to change what the kernel starts:
  init=/sbin/init
  init=/bin/systemd
  init=/bin/bash

> >> - I guess the initscripts-systemd is listed as an optional dependency
> >> of systemd, but I'm not sure how usefull systemd is without it...?
> >
> > Though I don't 100% know how systemd is, don't all init systems need scripts
> > to be useful? I would think that installing systemd's initscripts would be
> > important for it to do its work.
> 
> Yeah, this is more a packaging issue.

If you compile and install the upstream systemd source, you can reboot
into a working system (it comes with a bunch of streamlined unit files
needed for early boot). In fact, systemd is pretty good at not requiring
any unit files: you can launch it with only one unit file for getty and
have a working system. These initscripts-systemd are used as a bridge
between systemd and some of the early boot scripts in Arch.

> >> - The login console seems to be slightly messed up. I can login, but
> >> error/log messages keep being send to the terminal as well.
> >
> > What are the messages? Is there a bug in the bug tracker about this or is 
> > this
> > purely an upstream concern?
> 
> Just stderr output from the various daemons running. I'm guessing it
> goes to the wrong terminal.

This probably means that systemd was unable to start syslogd or doesn't
know about it. Which one do you use? Is it running?

> >> - I know how I can change the default target on the boot line, but can
> >> I set it anywhere else?

/lib/systemd/system/ has a symlink: default.target -> graphical.target
You can create /etc/systemd/system/default.target to override it.

> >> - sshd has listed network.service as a dependency, but what if you use
> >> NetworkManager instead?
> >
> > Would this be cause for a seperate set of daemon scripts just for systemd or
> > are there plans to make it work with rc.conf in much the same way SysV does?
> 
> systemd has "unit" files that replace the traditional sysv daemon
> scripts. They're much shorter and sweeter. The question was related to
> whether sshd should list "network" which is arch's /etc/rc.d/network
> script as a dependency.

Some of them are not so sweet. In fact, most of the advanced functions
(e.g. on demand service startup, fine tuning dependencies) are difficult
to grasp and the help is scattered over a handful of man pages. All of the
advertised features of systemd bring a lot of complexity with them.

-- 
--  Rogutės Sparnuotos

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Lukáš Jirkovský]

I think systemd is too much complicated and thus error prone. And so
does SysV init. In terms of reliability it should be as simple as
possible. What I really like is the the idea of runsv [1] – the init
itself does almost nothing. Even the simple things like respawning of
the processes are handled by external daemons. This is what I call
unix way and what I think is the most future proof (what if D-Bus
become obsolete etc etc).

And as other people said – I'm afraid of systemd even more because it
was written by the same person as Pulse Audio was. PA didn't work very
well for quite a long time. I'm not going to argue about that (it's
just my personal opinion and none of you will change it), but I just
don't believe someone who wrote a piece of crap which took several
years to become generally usable will suddenly write something so
delightful so it can be used as a replacement of one of the most
tested and most established things in Unix/Linux world.

[1] http://busybox.net/~vda/init_vs_runsv.html

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Tom Gundersen]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Karol Babioch  wrote:
> Am 20.01.2011 14:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:>
>> Anything in particular you have in mind? We are working towards
>> complete backwards compatibility with initscripts, and we are more or
>> less there (modulo unknown bugs).
>
> First of all I was talking about systemd as the default init system
> within Arch.

I see. I misunderstood.

>> Any suggestions about what might make the installation easier? At the
>> moment you have to install some packages from AUR and add a line to
>> your GRUB file.
>
> I appreciate your work (and anyone who has helped you out a bit), but to
> be honest its not the way I would think of an ideal solution :(. Right
> now you have to install a few packages from AUR and run it in parallel
> with sysvinit. I don't even know if there is a way to remove sysvinit,
> but I would guess this wouldn't be easy.

At the moment removing sysvinit is not a goal. We are happy to see
them peacefully co-exist. I expect this will continue being our goal
as long as sysvinit is the default on Arch.

> Furthermore units are provided by a single package. I don't think thats
> a good way, as I get a whole bunch of units I actually don't need.

This is a temporary solution until packages ship unit files upstream.
I agree it is not ideal, but it is a simple solution for the time
being (without much of a drawback, the unused unit files are not even
parsed).

> All in all, its relatively easy to install systemd, because of the work
> you and others have done, but it doesn't follow the KISS principle at all.

I agree that the temporary packaging solutions are not ideal, but it's
the best we can do in the short run. However, none of these problems
are fundamental, and if/when systemd is in widespread use, these
problems will disappear.

> I guess, to make it really affordable it must be declared as official,
> so the packages itself contain the units, replacing the sysvinit.

At the moment the intention is just to allow people to test systemd,
so this would be quite premature.

Thanks for your comments.

Cheers,

Tom

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Tom Gundersen]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Sander Jansen  wrote:
> So I installed it today and tried it out.  I still have to play with
> it some more.  Some initial impressions:

Thanks for the comments!

> - If you installed vala 0.10, systemd-git won't build, even though gtk
> is disabled. This is a bug in the configure script of systemd.
> Solution would be either to install vala-0.11 or remove vala from your
> system.

This is correct, and David Reisner (who is the maintainer of all the
systemd packages) just submitted a patch upstream to fix it.

> - I guess the initscripts-systemd is listed as an optional dependency
> of systemd, but I'm not sure how usefull systemd is without it...?

initscripts-systemd is needed if you want to regain all (ok, most) of
the functionality of the Arch initscripts. However, if you don't care
about all of that and only want a vanilla systemd setup then you
should be happy with just installing the systemd package.

> - The login console seems to be slightly messed up. I can login, but
> error/log messages keep being send to the terminal as well.

This is a known error, I added it to the FAQ
. In short, this is
due to lack of systemd support in syslog-ng. This will most probably
be fixed soon (I think I read about someone working on this). For
completeness: syslog-ng is one of three daemons (besides dbus and
udev) that need special systemd patches to work nicely. rsyslog has
this already and I believe the other major syslog implementations will
get it soon (if it is accepted upstream...).

> - I know how I can change the default target on the boot line, but can
> I set it anywhere else?

Yes. Added to the FAQ. You make a symlink from /etc/systemd/system/ to
your desired target.

> - sshd has listed network.service as a dependency, but what if you use
> NetworkManager instead?

Good point. I pushed a fix to my private repo
,
it should make it into the AUR package soon (if it is correct).

Cheers,

Tom

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Tom Gundersen]

2011/1/21 Yaro Kasear :
>> > Also, how does that work? Do you choose an init at some point?
>>
>> I believe its been mentioned that you'd just alter the boot parameters
>> in grub (or lilo if you use that).
>
> Is this in the wiki?

Yes. Let me know if it is unclear.

-t

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Tom Gundersen]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Heiko Baums  wrote:
> 1. A possible loss of control over my system due to many unnecessary
> automations and dynamizations.

I agree that the user should be in control of his system. If you find
any examples of loss of control, please file bug reports or send an
email, I'd be happy to follow up on it.

> 2. I don't like automounting. I want to have control over my drives and
> partitions and want to decide which partition is (auto-)mounted
> (that's what /etc/fstab is for) or not.

Unless you actively enable automounting (which is really cool btw) it
will not be used.

> 3. Parallel booting (staring several daemons parallel at boot time) can
> make booting significantly slower particularly on older and slower
> systems. Serial is quite often a lot faster than parallel. The harddisk
> can only make one read or write access at a time. So there's hardly
> benefit of starting daemons (reading them from the harddisk) parallel.
> Btw., such a parallelization of starting daemons is already possible
> with Arch's and Gentoo's sysv init system. So systemd is not needed for
> that.

There are work underway to deal with this (and in my experience it is
already dealt with by the simple readahead implementation that comes
with systemd), again bug reports are welcome (bootchart2 is a great
tool for this).

> 4. Somewhere (I can't remember where) I've read that systemd starts
> daemons only when they are needed. So if the daemons aren't started at
> boottime but later than it's obvious that the system is booting faster.
> But starting the daemons at runtime will take this saved time later,
> means you first have to wait longer for the daemon to be started and to
> be able to use its service for the first time. And again there's the
> point of loss of control over the system. I want to decide when a
> daemon is needed and when a daemon shall be started, and I don't want
> another daemon to decide that.

You have the choice in systemd between starting the service as soon as
possible or (if the service supports it) as late as possible. The
former would be used for services that are used most of the time, the
latter for services that are seldom used.

> 5. In the same article I read that systemd binds itself to port 80
> instead of starting apache at boottime and starts apache only if a
> request to port 80 comes in. This is not the task of an init system, and
> I have slight security concerns about that. If I tell the init system
> that I want apache being started then I want to have apache started at
> boottime or when I say so and not when systemd thinks it is needed.
> And this way systemd first needs to unbind itself from port 80 and then
> start apache and bind it to port 80. So if I open port 80 in my firewall
> this port is open without a software being bound to it, even if it's
> only a millisecond.

This functionality would be opt-in (it is not there yet for the case
of apache), and if the attack vector you outline is valid I can assure
you that this would not be allowed upstream.

> 6. There's again an additional daemon which is always running in the
> background and eating unnecessarily system resources which could much
> better be used for the programs which are really used.

This I doubt is a real issue. The memory footprint is tiny, and most
of the time it will be swapped out. If you have some numbers showing
me wrong, this would be a bug I'd be happy to look into.

> 7. I'm using LVM and harddisk encryption. So systemd seems not to work
> for me anyway.

This should work. However, we desperately need testers for this (as
the LVM support is not upstream, but written by yours truly, based on
the Arch initscripts).

> Regarding the arguments about having more control over started daemons.
> Have you guys already read the boot messages? There are such nice
> messages "[BUSY]", "[DONE]", "[FAIL]" at the end of almost every line.
> And there's /var/log, dmesg and tools like ps, top, htop, etc. For my
> part I have total control over my running or not running daemons and
> other software.

There is quite a lot more to controlling daemons than this. I'd
recommend having a look at the blog entries linked to in the beginning
of this thread.

> I'm not quite sure if I'm right with my concerns, because I haven't
> tested systemd and don't know much about it, yet. So, please, correct
> me if I'm wrong and explain it. But I don't like too much automation
> and dynamization anyway, because it easily can make things worse and
> lead to loss of control over the system.

If you want to try out systemd and have any problems/questions let me
know. (If you prefer to stick with sysvinit, that's fine too ;-) ).

Cheers,

Tom

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Tom Gundersen]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Heiko Baums  wrote:
> [...] if
> apache is patched can this behaviour of systemd be turned off?

Yes (as a rule of thumb: fancy functionality that you don't like can
almost always be turned off).

Sorry if I missed some questions in any of my previous emails.

Cheers,

Tom

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Tom Gundersen]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Yaro Kasear  wrote:
> I certainly can't fault that part. That's probably open source's greatest
> strength. ESR called it "Linus' Law" and he explained it succinctly in the
> CatB paper. My concern is about how cooperative and willing to fix known
> issues upstream will have. You can write patches, but only one person (Or
> possibly, a group of people.) can approve it for an official inclusion with
> upstream. How many patches has Lennart rejected on systemd? How many has he
> accepted? Of those has he rejected has he given a verifiable reason?

I agree that this is an important question. If you look at the
mailinglist archives you'll see that almost all patches were accepted
(possibly after some suggested changes). In my opinion, the patches
that were not accepted were dealt with in an appropriate way
(alternate solutions were found to valid problems). It should also be
mentioned that systemd is not a one-man-show, but several people from
different distributions have commit rights.

> I admit to never using RAID/LVM/ENCRYPTION. But last I checked init had
> nothing whatsoever to do with how /dev is populated or managed. We have udev
> for that, and udev doesn't care what init system we use. All inits do is call
> udev when their scripts tell them to. I don't see how this makes systemd more
> viable than SysV when udev is what controls this instead, as udev works the
> same no matter if its SysV, Upstart, or systemd.
>
> Perhaps you can clarify init's role in device population besides running udev
> when appropriate, as SysV is already capable of that?

I'd suggest having a look in your /etc/rc.sysinit and /etc/rc.shutdown
how we deal with this in Arch (I'm sure if I tried to give an overview
I would quickly get something wrong and confuse everyone).

Cheers,

Tom

Re: [arch-general] Rail Model font for coders

[Cédric Girard]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:10 PM, <
hare_krsna_hare_krsna_krsna_krsna_hare_hare_hare_rama_hare_rama_rama_rama_hare_h...@lavabit.com
> wrote:

> I am using this email address for both sending and receiving certain
> emails without technical problems.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Meeku
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] Rail Model font for coders
> From:"Guillaume Brunerie" 
> Date:Thu, January 20, 2011 3:45 pm
> To:  "General Discussion about Arch Linux"  >
> --
>
> 2011/1/20 Peter Lewis 
>
> > On Thursday 20 January 2011 14:15:32 Cédric Girard wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Jesse Young 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > hare_krsna_hare_krsna_krsna_krsna_hare_hare_hare_rama_hare_rama_rama_rama
> > > > _hare_h...@lavabit.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you really believe this is a serious request ?
> >
> > Heh - but that is one cool email address.
> >
>
> The funny thing is that this is not even a valid email address. The local
> part (everything before the @) should be at most 64 characters long, and
> there it’s 84 characters long.
>
>
Can someone stop him from spamming our inboxes ?

-- 
Cédric Girard

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Upstart

[Karol Babioch]

Hi,

Am 20.01.2011 14:18, schrieb Tom Gundersen:>
> Anything in particular you have in mind? We are working towards
> complete backwards compatibility with initscripts, and we are more or
> less there (modulo unknown bugs).

First of all I was talking about systemd as the default init system
within Arch. I don't think this will happen at all. You see the reaction
of the people here, most of them are quite too happy with sysvinit ;).

> Any suggestions about what might make the installation easier? At the
> moment you have to install some packages from AUR and add a line to
> your GRUB file.

I appreciate your work (and anyone who has helped you out a bit), but to
be honest its not the way I would think of an ideal solution :(. Right
now you have to install a few packages from AUR and run it in parallel
with sysvinit. I don't even know if there is a way to remove sysvinit,
but I would guess this wouldn't be easy.

Furthermore units are provided by a single package. I don't think thats
a good way, as I get a whole bunch of units I actually don't need.

All in all, its relatively easy to install systemd, because of the work
you and others have done, but it doesn't follow the KISS principle at all.

I guess, to make it really affordable it must be declared as official,
so the packages itself contain the units, replacing the sysvinit.

Best regards,
Karol Babioch



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [arch-general] Rail Model font for coders

[hare_krsna_hare_krsna_krsna_krsna_hare_hare_hare_rama_hare_rama_rama_rama_hare_hare]

I am using this email address for both sending and receiving certain
emails without technical problems.

Best,


Meeku

 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [arch-general] Rail Model font for coders
From:"Guillaume Brunerie" 
Date:Thu, January 20, 2011 3:45 pm
To:  "General Discussion about Arch Linux" 
--

2011/1/20 Peter Lewis 

> On Thursday 20 January 2011 14:15:32 Cédric Girard wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Jesse Young 
> wrote:
> > >
> hare_krsna_hare_krsna_krsna_krsna_hare_hare_hare_rama_hare_rama_rama_rama
> > > _hare_h...@lavabit.com wrote:
> >
> > Do you really believe this is a serious request ?
>
> Heh - but that is one cool email address.
>

The funny thing is that this is not even a valid email address. The local
part (everything before the @) should be at most 64 characters long, and
there it’s 84 characters long.

Re: [arch-general] Rail Model font for coders

[hare_krsna_hare_krsna_krsna_krsna_hare_hare_hare_rama_hare_rama_rama_rama_hare_hare]

Meeku:  It is out-of-the-box spiritual philosophy.


--- Original Message 
Subject: Re: [arch-general] Rail Model font for coders
From:"Ng Oon-Ee" 
Date:Thu, January 20, 2011 7:28 pm
To:  arch-general@archlinux.org
--

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 01:59 +0530, Piyush P Kurur wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 03:10:19PM -0500,
hare_krsna_hare_krsna_krsna_krsna_hare_hare_hare_rama_hare_rama_rama_rama_hare_h...@lavabit.com
wrote:
> >
> > > A quick search in google reveals that he spammed it across lists of
> > > numerous distributions and others. Must be a religious fanatic or
just a
> > > troll. *shrugs*
> >
> > Meeku:  It's a legitimate Press Release not spam/troll.   There is
> > spiritual non-materialistic content in email address and font reasons.
> >
>
> yeah we call those spiritual non-materialistic content SPAM.  SP from
> spritual and AM for anti-materialistic.
>
> ppk

Epic win =)



Find health insurance health Online Get Started Now.
http://click.lavabit.com/frwz61rf3pu86ochter5ix7hjgpd6k8qap7nify8xce84dt8kieb/

Re: [arch-general] Bad pyqt 4.8.2-2 package -- on rit?

[Andrea Scarpino]

On Friday 21 January 2011 12:19:38 Damjan wrote:
> While you're at it please correct these too:
> ( 7/10) upgrading python2-qt
> [#] 100%
> New optional dependencies for python2-qt
>  python-pengl: enable OpenGL 3D graphics in PyQt applications
>  qscintilla: QScintilla API
> 
> The first optional dep should be python2-opengl and the second one
> python2-qscintilla, perhaps?
I already fixed the typo in opengl on trunk. qscintilla is OK.

-- 
Andrea

Re: [arch-general] Bad pyqt 4.8.2-2 package -- on rit?

[Damjan]

This is happening because somebody forgot to bump pkgrel and switched
manually the packages.

Yes is my fault. Pyqt was removed from database some days ago, I create a new
package but I forgot to upload it as 4.8.2-3. Anyway a new pyqt package is
coming and will fix this for everyone without -Syy.


While you're at it please correct these too:
( 7/10) upgrading python2-qt 
[#] 100%

New optional dependencies for python2-qt
python-pengl: enable OpenGL 3D graphics in PyQt applications
qscintilla: QScintilla API

The first optional dep should be python2-opengl and the second one 
python2-qscintilla, perhaps?



--
дамјан

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Heiko Baums]

Am Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:30:53 +0100
schrieb Philipp Überbacher :

> Now I know what avahi and PA does, and I don't have a user for either,
> yet they are there. I don't have the slightest idea what CK and PK
> does, they don't have any tangible benefit for me, yet they are there.
> I'm not sure whether systemd will fall into the former or later
> category, but I'd be really surprised if it had any real benefit for
> me Yet I'm sure to have it on my machine within a year or so.

Me, too.

I know that I have one or two entries in my Xfce menu for some avahi
stuff, but I really don't know what this is for. It was just there as a
dependency for another package.

The only thing which has changed since I'm forced to using CK and PK is
that I had to edit my .xinitrc and add a ck-launch-session, and that I
now have again another daemon running on my system for features I had
before, too, without these unnecessary, additional, resource eating
stuff, which makes in the best case my system slower. But something
doesn't work anymore without this CK and PK stuff. I currently can't
remember what that was.

The same with all those vfs daemons, which I really don't need and
don't know what they are for. Or udisks-daemon. Some time it was just
running on my system. I don't know why. I didn't start it by myself. I
could access all my disks and devices without it before.

Those developments are not always the best. And I'm really worried
about them.

I know, this is getting a bit off-topic. But it has to be said.

Heiko

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Heiko Baums]

Am Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:53:50 -0700
schrieb Brendan Long :

> Yeah PulseAudio sucks so bad that just about everyone uses it now. Do
> you really think that the people behind nearly every major distro are
> stupid enough to use it as the default if it didn't do anything?
> 
> A lot of PA's issues came from using parts of drivers that weren't
> being used before, and speed differences between PA, ALSA, and OSS are
> completely unimportant on any modern computer.
> 
> And yeah, you might not need it, but that doesn't mean it's useless
> and sucks.

It does not work for ice1712 based audio cards while ALSA works
perfectly with those cards.

Heiko

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from Heiko Baums's message of 2011-01-21 03:07:27 +0100:
> Am Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:03:23 +0800
> schrieb Ng Oon-Ee :
> 
> > This talk is probably a year or so out of date however. Try pulseaudio
> > now, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. You'd also have noticed
> > that actual bug reports on our forums/ML etc. concerning pulseaudio
> > have dropped to close to nil.
> 
> Well, PulseAudio is a bit off-topic here, but PulseAudio doesn't work
> with professional or semi-professional audio cards like ice1712 based
> cards like the M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 that I've got. And there's also
> no working PA mixer for these audio cards. ALSA is working perfectly
> with these cards including mixing sounds of every software by dmix and
> the only, but perfectly working mixer for these cards is envy24control
> from alsa-tools or alsa-tools-ice1712. This issue is quite old on
> upstream's bug tracker, but not fixed, yet. And the posted workarounds
> don't work for me or, if they could work, are just PITA.
> 
> My concerns regarding systemd are:
> 
> 1. A possible loss of control over my system due to many unnecessary
> automations and dynamizations.
> 
> 2. I don't like automounting. I want to have control over my drives and
> partitions and want to decide which partition is (auto-)mounted
> (that's what /etc/fstab is for) or not.
> 
> 3. Parallel booting (staring several daemons parallel at boot time) can
> make booting significantly slower particularly on older and slower
> systems. Serial is quite often a lot faster than parallel. The harddisk
> can only make one read or write access at a time. So there's hardly
> benefit of starting daemons (reading them from the harddisk) parallel.
> Btw., such a parallelization of starting daemons is already possible
> with Arch's and Gentoo's sysv init system. So systemd is not needed for
> that.
> 
> 4. Somewhere (I can't remember where) I've read that systemd starts
> daemons only when they are needed. So if the daemons aren't started at
> boottime but later than it's obvious that the system is booting faster.
> But starting the daemons at runtime will take this saved time later,
> means you first have to wait longer for the daemon to be started and to
> be able to use its service for the first time. And again there's the
> point of loss of control over the system. I want to decide when a
> daemon is needed and when a daemon shall be started, and I don't want
> another daemon to decide that.
> 
> 5. In the same article I read that systemd binds itself to port 80
> instead of starting apache at boottime and starts apache only if a
> request to port 80 comes in. This is not the task of an init system, and
> I have slight security concerns about that. If I tell the init system
> that I want apache being started then I want to have apache started at
> boottime or when I say so and not when systemd thinks it is needed.
> And this way systemd first needs to unbind itself from port 80 and then
> start apache and bind it to port 80. So if I open port 80 in my firewall
> this port is open without a software being bound to it, even if it's
> only a millisecond.
> 
> 6. There's again an additional daemon which is always running in the
> background and eating unnecessarily system resources which could much
> better be used for the programs which are really used.
> 
> 7. I'm using LVM and harddisk encryption. So systemd seems not to work
> for me anyway.
> 
> Regarding the arguments about having more control over started daemons.
> Have you guys already read the boot messages? There are such nice
> messages "[BUSY]", "[DONE]", "[FAIL]" at the end of almost every line.
> And there's /var/log, dmesg and tools like ps, top, htop, etc. For my
> part I have total control over my running or not running daemons and
> other software.
> 
> I'm not quite sure if I'm right with my concerns, because I haven't
> tested systemd and don't know much about it, yet. So, please, correct
> me if I'm wrong and explain it. But I don't like too much automation
> and dynamization anyway, because it easily can make things worse and
> lead to loss of control over the system.
> 
> I'm quite satisfied with the current sysv init. It does everything
> which is needed to be done at boottime. And the init process simply is
> only for booting the system and for nothing else.
> 
> Btw., Ubuntu with its upstart or systemd is not starting faster for me
> than Arch Linux with its sysv init, at least not in Virtualbox and QEMU.
> 
> Heiko

I'm worried about pretty much the same things.

I have to admit that I don't know a lot of technical details, be it
about SysVinit or systemd but I start to see what kind of person Lennart
is and hence in which direction the systemd project is going. systemd,
same as avahi, PA, CK and PK is going to end up in pretty much every
distribution. Lennart doesn't care about the unix way, so systemd won't
be unixey. He also doesn't care about simplicity, so it won't be simple.
I'm not su

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Dieter Plaetinck]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:16:34 +0100
Jan Steffens  wrote:

> Arch's init system is completely ignorant of dependencies.

Depends on how you look at it, I guess.
I see the explicit ordering and backgrounding of daemons (done by the
user) in rc.conf as a (very crude) form of "dependency/parallelisation
optimisation".

Dieter

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Ray Rashif]

On 21 January 2011 16:49, Auguste Pop  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Ray Rashif  wrote:
>> On 21 January 2011 16:43, John K Pate  wrote:
>>>
 > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd&do_Search=Go

 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd-arch-units-git&do_Search=Go

>>>
>>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40419
>>>
>>> They just didn't put "-git" on the end, but it is a git package
>>
>> That doesn't make one bit difference. The fact is that the package
>> does not exist. It was just an FYI for the rest, I was not asking for
>> any answers or links.
>>
>
> you do understand that you can edit the wiki page yourself to correct
> this mistake, right?

No, sorry, I don't.

I was replying to someone's instructions, not a wiki article. Sheesh.
Trivial matter. Forget it, please. My mistake to have brought it up.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Auguste Pop]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Ray Rashif  wrote:
> On 21 January 2011 16:43, John K Pate  wrote:
>>
>>> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd&do_Search=Go
>>>
>>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd-arch-units-git&do_Search=Go
>>>
>>
>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40419
>>
>> They just didn't put "-git" on the end, but it is a git package
>
> That doesn't make one bit difference. The fact is that the package
> does not exist. It was just an FYI for the rest, I was not asking for
> any answers or links.
>

you do understand that you can edit the wiki page yourself to correct
this mistake, right?

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Ray Rashif]

On 21 January 2011 16:43, John K Pate  wrote:
>
>> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd&do_Search=Go
>>
>> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd-arch-units-git&do_Search=Go
>>
>
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40419
>
> They just didn't put "-git" on the end, but it is a git package

That doesn't make one bit difference. The fact is that the package
does not exist. It was just an FYI for the rest, I was not asking for
any answers or links.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[John K Pate]

> > http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd&do_Search=Go
> 
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd-arch-units-git&do_Search=Go
> 

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=40419

They just didn't put "-git" on the end, but it is a git package

JKP


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Ray Rashif]

On 21 January 2011 16:21, KESHAV P.R.  wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 13:43, Ray Rashif  wrote:
>> On 20 January 2011 21:34, Tom Gundersen  wrote:
>>> You are encouraged to install systemd-git, systemd-arch-units-git and
>>> initscripts-systemd-git. It will not conflict with the standard
>>> initscripts package, and you can switch back and forth by making the
>>> change in GRUB during boot.
>>
>> There is no systemd-arch-units-git.
>>
>
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd&do_Search=Go

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd-arch-units-git&do_Search=Go

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[KESHAV P.R.]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 13:43, Ray Rashif  wrote:
> On 20 January 2011 21:34, Tom Gundersen  wrote:
>> You are encouraged to install systemd-git, systemd-arch-units-git and
>> initscripts-systemd-git. It will not conflict with the standard
>> initscripts package, and you can switch back and forth by making the
>> change in GRUB during boot.
>
> There is no systemd-arch-units-git.
>

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&K=systemd&do_Search=Go

Re: [arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd

[Ray Rashif]

On 20 January 2011 21:34, Tom Gundersen  wrote:
> You are encouraged to install systemd-git, systemd-arch-units-git and
> initscripts-systemd-git. It will not conflict with the standard
> initscripts package, and you can switch back and forth by making the
> change in GRUB during boot.

There is no systemd-arch-units-git.