Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Hello.
I thing its a very good idea to go for a possibility to choose between
systemd and SySV. Simply because, it's an endless debate, peoples are for
SySV or for systemD, both parties are convinced by they choice.
For dbus, with the kdbus module coming slowly in the stable branch of the
kernel, they is a chance that we will be able to skip it in the future the
need of dbus in a systemd LFS.
By the way, I would like to congratulate for your superbe job on LFS/ BLFS.
keep going.
BR,
Thierry
2014-03-29 23:45 GMT+01:00 Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com:
Matt Burgess wrote:
On 2014-03-29 06:32, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Just a progress report. I've had some success. I can boot the same
system to either sysd or sysv. I have a couple of short scripts to
switch. For example:
$ cat set-sysd
#! /bin/bash
for p in init halt poweroff reboot runlevel shutdown telinit; do
ln -sfvn $p-sysd /sbin/$p
if [ $p == init ]; then continue; fi
ln -svfn $p-sysd.8 /usr/share/man/man8/${p}.8
done
ln -svfn init.d-sysd /etc/init.d
At that point a reboot will come up with the new initialization. What I
have for the book right now is pretty rough and quite a way from being
ready to commit, but the proof of concept is basically done.
Bruce,
Firstly, thanks for picking this up and running with it, especially
seeing as you were originally (and possibly still are) quite opposed to
systemd.
I don't think it is a good method of teaching what's needed during boot.
I also think it demands a lot that is frequently not needed or desired.
Your approach seems like a decent compromise, offering our readers the
choice of which init system to use.
I only have a minor nitpick with the above. Please look at the
'Spelling' section of http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
- upstream prefer people to refer to the project/binaries as 'systemd';
would you mind adjusting the names of the symlinked binaries from sysd
to systemd to comply please (it's only an extra 3 characters after all)?
Well I wanted to use sysd/sysv for symmetry, but I can change it.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 12:33 +0200 schrieb Thierry Nuttens: Hello. I thing its a very good idea to go for a possibility to choose between systemd and SySV. Simply because, it's an endless debate, peoples are for SySV or for systemD, both parties are convinced by they choice. That is for sure true for the phase of building a LFS system but I cannot see a benefit in having both systems installed in the final OS. It is not clear to me why I would want to boot once using sysv and once using systemd. BLFS packages do either use systemd or not, depending in which environment they are built but I hardly believe that they do it as a runtime choice. Can you give me a hint why I should have both on the machine at the same time? Or did I misunderstood the whole discussion? For dbus, with the kdbus module coming slowly in the stable branch of the kernel, they is a chance that we will be able to skip it in the future the need of dbus in a systemd LFS. By the way, I would like to congratulate for your superbe job on LFS/ BLFS. keep going. Very very true! I'd like to have more spare time to contribute a bit more to the (B)LFS project. BR, Thierry Thomas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
thomas wrote: Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 12:33 +0200 schrieb Thierry Nuttens: Hello. I thing its a very good idea to go for a possibility to choose between systemd and SySV. Simply because, it's an endless debate, peoples are for SySV or for systemD, both parties are convinced by they choice. That is for sure true for the phase of building a LFS system but I cannot see a benefit in having both systems installed in the final OS. It is not clear to me why I would want to boot once using sysv and once using systemd. BLFS packages do either use systemd or not, depending in which environment they are built but I hardly believe that they do it as a runtime choice. Can you give me a hint why I should have both on the machine at the same time? Or did I misunderstood the whole discussion? Sure. LFS has education as a major objective. Being able to switch allows users to compare for themselves. The amount of space needed for both systems is negligible. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I did a little more checking. If eudev is dropped and the full systemd
is substituted in a standard LFS environment, the following have name
collisions:
1 /usr/share/man/man8/shutdown.8
2 /usr/share/man/man8/poweroff.8
3 /usr/share/man/man8/telinit.8
4 /usr/share/man/man8/halt.8
5 /usr/share/man/man8/runlevel.8
6 /usr/share/man/man8/reboot.8
7 /sbin/reboot
8 /sbin/halt
9 /sbin/runlevel
10 /sbin/telinit
11 /sbin/poweroff
12 /sbin/shutdown
13 /sbin/init
I still need to check out boot scripts and other initialization, but
combining these boot systems with small script to set the desired system
seems doable. I don't think it would be necessary to even ask the user
to choose at build time.
Just a progress report. I've had some success. I can boot the same
system to either sysd or sysv. I have a couple of short scripts to
switch. For example:
$ cat set-sysd
#! /bin/bash
for p in init halt poweroff reboot runlevel shutdown telinit; do
ln -sfvn $p-sysd /sbin/$p
if [ $p == init ]; then continue; fi
ln -svfn $p-sysd.8 /usr/share/man/man8/${p}.8
done
ln -svfn init.d-sysd /etc/init.d
At that point a reboot will come up with the new initialization. What I
have for the book right now is pretty rough and quite a way from being
ready to commit, but the proof of concept is basically done.
There is a lot of work to do in documenting the configuration and the
basic settings, especially on the systemd side. For example, how are
messages to the console controlled. In sysv it is done the the basic rc
script with 'dmesg $LOGLEVEL', but I don't know how to execute that
early in systemd.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
On 2014-03-29 06:32, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Just a progress report. I've had some success. I can boot the same
system to either sysd or sysv. I have a couple of short scripts to
switch. For example:
$ cat set-sysd
#! /bin/bash
for p in init halt poweroff reboot runlevel shutdown telinit; do
ln -sfvn $p-sysd /sbin/$p
if [ $p == init ]; then continue; fi
ln -svfn $p-sysd.8 /usr/share/man/man8/${p}.8
done
ln -svfn init.d-sysd /etc/init.d
At that point a reboot will come up with the new initialization. What I
have for the book right now is pretty rough and quite a way from being
ready to commit, but the proof of concept is basically done.
Bruce,
Firstly, thanks for picking this up and running with it, especially
seeing as you were originally (and possibly still are) quite opposed to
systemd.
Your approach seems like a decent compromise, offering our readers the
choice of which init system to use.
I only have a minor nitpick with the above. Please look at the
'Spelling' section of http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
- upstream prefer people to refer to the project/binaries as 'systemd';
would you mind adjusting the names of the symlinked binaries from sysd
to systemd to comply please (it's only an extra 3 characters after all)?
Thanks,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Matt Burgess wrote:
On 2014-03-29 06:32, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Just a progress report. I've had some success. I can boot the same
system to either sysd or sysv. I have a couple of short scripts to
switch. For example:
$ cat set-sysd
#! /bin/bash
for p in init halt poweroff reboot runlevel shutdown telinit; do
ln -sfvn $p-sysd /sbin/$p
if [ $p == init ]; then continue; fi
ln -svfn $p-sysd.8 /usr/share/man/man8/${p}.8
done
ln -svfn init.d-sysd /etc/init.d
At that point a reboot will come up with the new initialization. What I
have for the book right now is pretty rough and quite a way from being
ready to commit, but the proof of concept is basically done.
Bruce,
Firstly, thanks for picking this up and running with it, especially
seeing as you were originally (and possibly still are) quite opposed to
systemd.
I don't think it is a good method of teaching what's needed during boot.
I also think it demands a lot that is frequently not needed or desired.
Your approach seems like a decent compromise, offering our readers the
choice of which init system to use.
I only have a minor nitpick with the above. Please look at the
'Spelling' section of http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
- upstream prefer people to refer to the project/binaries as 'systemd';
would you mind adjusting the names of the symlinked binaries from sysd
to systemd to comply please (it's only an extra 3 characters after all)?
Well I wanted to use sysd/sysv for symmetry, but I can change it.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Am Dienstag, 25. März 2014, 11:22:38 schrieb Bruce Dubbs: 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 Hi, I personally would dislike that approach to merge this two systems together. Having that all installed, it may confuse more than it helps. While I still deeply dislike systemd (I cannot argue technically, its more emotional), it is quite right to have the systemd-branch as systemd really may become part of the future and we shouldn't close the eyes for that. But sysv is still valid, clear in its structures (and it does not take ages to boot). In my eyes ideal for the educational background LFS has. A boot issue can (mostly) easily tracked down to the bootscript which that can be tweaked in whatever way for whatever reason. So keeping the original alive is also valid. I'd vote for not merging the two different init systems. I think systemd is confusing enough so I'd think that mixing it with the classic would add unnessessary complexity. The charme of a LFS system is to be crystal clear. That would be somehow lost. Maybe a if-else in the book would not harm too much if it is only one or two. I think something like if you want to install systemd as boot system goto chap X else continue is understandable for everyone when a section is added which describes the differences between sysv and systemd. Thats required to give the user background to make her decision. So having both in a clear way in one book may work, but I'd never install both on disk. Btw, +1 to add those packages like attr, acl and such to the core. The only one still missing is cpio. With this one, everything would be available to setup a Linux system using a initramfs for booting. Just my 2ct, -- Thomas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
DJ Lucas wrote: On 03/25/14 11:22, Bruce Dubbs wrote: 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. What I have in mind is to install both systems side-by-side and then asking the user to choose one or the other, and then adding a small script to switch between the two methods. The switch for a plain LFS system looks quite doable. I'm not so sure about BLFS packages though. This is a relatively long term project. I'm intentionally going slow so it may be a few weeks before is shows up in the development portion of the book. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Thomas Trepl wrote: Am Dienstag, 25. März 2014, 11:22:38 schrieb Bruce Dubbs: 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 Hi, I personally would dislike that approach to merge this two systems together. Having that all installed, it may confuse more than it helps. While I still deeply dislike systemd (I cannot argue technically, its more emotional), it is quite right to have the systemd-branch as systemd really may become part of the future and we shouldn't close the eyes for that. But sysv is still valid, clear in its structures (and it does not take ages to boot). In my eyes ideal for the educational background LFS has. A boot issue can (mostly) easily tracked down to the bootscript which that can be tweaked in whatever way for whatever reason. So keeping the original alive is also valid. I'd vote for not merging the two different init systems. I think systemd is confusing enough so I'd think that mixing it with the classic would add unnessessary complexity. The charme of a LFS system is to be crystal clear. That would be somehow lost. If we end up with a combined system, there definitely will be a page describing the advantages and disadvantages of both systems and allow the user to choose. The default will be sysV. The combined version gives the advantage of using the same udev in both systems. One needed package for systemd is dbus. I really don't like adding that. If you are building a server (e.g. web or database server), there is no need for X. Without X applications, I know of no need for dbus. Actually, for an LFS system, I see no need for systemd in any case, but I do feel the need to add it for educational reasons. It will also be interesting to compare it on the same system. Maybe a if-else in the book would not harm too much if it is only one or two. I think something like if you want to install systemd as boot system goto chap X else continue is understandable for everyone when a section is added which describes the differences between sysv and systemd. Thats required to give the user background to make her decision. So having both in a clear way in one book may work, but I'd never install both on disk. Btw, +1 to add those packages like attr, acl and such to the core. The only one still missing is cpio. With this one, everything would be available to setup a Linux system using a initramfs for booting. I'm not so sure about cpio. The only reason to add that (IMO) is to support the initrd, and we don't describe that in LFS at all. In fact, one of the advantages of LFS is to show that an initrd is not necessary most of the time. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:41:37 -0500
From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com
To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
akhiezer wrote:
And in any event, you're still aiming at adding an ifs'n'buts layer to
the lfs-main book - the type of thing that has been argued against many
many times.
Yes, if we end up doing this, it is a major change from our traditional
methodology. It would, in fact, be LFS 8.0.
But still, you're running too much of a risk of main branch becoming a
convoluted - epicycles 'pon epicycles - mess if it is 'exposed' too-directly
to e.g. a still-rapidly-changing 'upstream' (which in this case happens
to be the sysd side of things). Instead, you'd normally keep lfs-main
and lfs-sysd as separate branches, and merge them into a third branch,
lfs-combined. ((Aside: of course, in time, the branch names might be
revised/remapped.))
Part of the reason that comparisons of lfs-main and lfs-sysd can be done
just now quite readily, is precisely that they are two clearly separate
branches. Could you still do such clear comparisons if you have only
lfs-combined and lfs-sysd as the two branches? E.g. if you stop having
a separate lfs-main and replace lfs-main with lfs-combined directly,
then are you sure that you - and indeed others - will be able to auto-
(or at least efficiently) and accurately generate the equivalent of a clear
lfs-main book from lfs-combined, by setting a param, say USE_SYSTEMD=0 ?
Are you also reasonably sure that there aren't any hard blocks going to
happen: the two projects - lfs-main and lfs-sysd - may be readily-entwinable
just now in their respective present states; are you sure enough that that
will be the case for at least, say, the next two years? If you're not sure
enough of that, then even more reason to have lfs-combined as a third,
separate branch.
It's also an important point that having lfs-main and lfs-sys as clearly
separate branches, helps 'keep the peace' - 'good fences / good neighbours'
- and helps keep respective groups 'happy': each can get on productively
with doing the respective works that they enjoy; and as a fairly direct
by-product of that, one can see clearly how readily can the two branches
be merged into the 'lfs-combined' branch/project.
So, having lfs-{main,sysd} as separate branches, is not a pointless
unnecessary burden: on the contrary, it's having them clearly separate,
that contributes in large part to lfs-combined being so readily do-able.
I do think that the idea is of interest: but it's really a candidate for
a separate branch/project.
So far I've just added some packages that sysd needs but doesn't change
the essence of the book a lot.
But those packages would auto- drop-out if a user is building/following the
non-sysd track of the book, right? You _would_ tell them that they don't
need to build/do those packages/steps: or would you let a few 'innocuous'
ones slip through unmentioned and have users build them anyhow - e.g. for
devs' convenience if you hit (as is reasonably predictable) a bind. IOW,
if it's convenient for devs, would you quietly have non-sysd users building
stuff that's really genuinely only required for the sysd side?
Adding sysd is where things really start
to change. After I do some work in my sandbox, I may indeed create a
separate branch, which, btw, is not really much more than the git
method: cd ../../branches; svn cp ../trunk/BOOK experimental
In case that last point is re the earlier remark about git branches being
'inexpensive': it wasn't said that the inexpense was just concerning the
creation of branches; but rather, overall - and in particular central
things like rebasing.
The activity that you're embarking on, would almost everywhere else be done
on a separate branch. I've encountered - whether directly or indirectly -
only very rarely, projects where it's decided to essentially refactor the
project directly on the main branch.
You say that if it doesn't work out then things can just be reverted. That's
far easier to do on a separate branch - or indeed just blow the branch away
- than it would be to essentially, in practice, have to cherry-pick which
commits you want to revert from a main branch ... 'cos you'd earlier gone'n
decided at some point, for some reason, to do 'experimental'-branch-type
work, on main trunk ... .
rgds,
akh
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
akhiezer wrote: But those packages would auto- drop-out if a user is building/following the non-sysd track of the book, right? Not necessarily. There are several packages that people have suggested are not necessary in LFS. I don't remember which, but LFS has never been aimed at a minimum Linux build. Adding a full systemd automatically adds udev so that's useful and things like attr, acl, etc are not really a problem. The only thing I really don't like is dbus, but that's not really a problem either if the user uses svsV and doesn't add the start script. dbus is not needed on most servers that don't also need an X install. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:07:16 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd akhiezer wrote: But those packages would auto- drop-out if a user is building/following the non-sysd track of the book, right? Not necessarily. I guess the devil's in the details of the 'not necessarily', but: you're essentially parametrising lfs for sysd yes/no, but intend to simply omit some items from that parametrisation; and moreover, items that are fairly clear-cut as to their yes/no inclusion; while doing all of the other, arguably more-akward parts. ? There are several packages that people have suggested are not necessary in LFS. I don't remember which, but LFS has never been aimed at a minimum Linux build. Just to be clear: the query was, of course, re sysd; and not re minimal build or any of a myriad of other variously-related matters. Adding a full systemd automatically adds udev so that's useful and things like attr, acl, etc are not really a problem. I guess that if the packages are represented accurately on the 'dependencies' page, then those folks interested can utilise that info for their purposes - e.g. even if just as a cross-check, /or to (auto-)build their own deps-chain info, etc. Similarly re 'rationale' page. The only thing I really don't like is dbus, but that's not really a problem either if the user uses svsV and doesn't add the start script. dbus is not needed on most servers that don't also need an X install. ((Yes, likewise here we pick'n'choose parts of lfs as appropriate. Further, as noted before, we use b/lfs c as part of several input streams - on their respective own, separate branches - to the os's that we build here. One of b/lfs's usefulnesses wrt that, is that it's one of those streams that doesn't need overmuch 'untangling'. )) rgds, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com wrote: Armin K. wrote: On 03/25/2014 05:22 PM, 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. It's named systemd-udevd and it's installed in /lib/systemd. Ah, yes. The change in name seems unnecessary, but I remember now. A symlink might be appropriate if this approach turns out to be feasible. -- Bruce 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. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page Certainly enough interest in both init systems, where I would not want one or the other removed. and either a symlink to /sbin/init, or init=/sbin/init.systemd [if it existed] from grub would handle that. Only issue I can see is that it can be a bit confusing installing both including configuration files, and not sure if you would want /etc/init.d populated with the lfs-bootscripts when booting up systemd, as I think systemd can use init.d scripts during boot. (Skipping all the problems, it would be nice to see a single source for updates to the LFS system and conformity between the 2 books. When updating my scripts, I watch both LFS and LFS-systemd commits [about 178 messages behind so far]) -- Nathan Coulson (conathan) -- Location: British Columbia, Canada Timezone: PST (-8) Webpage: http://www.nathancoulson.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:22:38 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd 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. I'd recommend any such 'lfs-combined' be done in a third branch, separate from lfs-systemd and lfs-main, and using merges from the latter two: and *not* try to do all three in a single branch. If instead all three approaches are (attempted to be) done directly on a single branch, then inter alia you're practising the kind of 'layering' that has been argued against (incl by yrself?) quite often - e.g. not having multilib, avoid too many ifs'n'buts, cc, as it would obscure central educational goals of the book, usw. Certainly I think, in this respect at least, that it'd be wise of Armin to not give up the separate lfs-systemd branch lightly. Also, sysd is still in quite a state of flux; so even more reason to keep it essentially contained in its own branch. If the three-branches approach appears to be too 'difficult' ... then maybe that's even more reason to be cautious about any notions of doing everything on a single branch. rgds, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
akhiezer wrote: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:22:38 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd 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. I'd recommend any such 'lfs-combined' be done in a third branch, separate from lfs-systemd and lfs-main, and using merges from the latter two: and *not* try to do all three in a single branch. If instead all three approaches are (attempted to be) done directly on a single branch, then inter alia you're practising the kind of 'layering' that has been argued against (incl by yrself?) quite often - e.g. not having multilib, avoid too many ifs'n'buts, cc, as it would obscure central educational goals of the book, usw. Certainly I think, in this respect at least, that it'd be wise of Armin to not give up the separate lfs-systemd branch lightly. Also, sysd is still in quite a state of flux; so even more reason to keep it essentially contained in its own branch. If the three-branches approach appears to be too 'difficult' ... then maybe that's even more reason to be cautious about any notions of doing everything on a single branch. I understand your concerns, but the development branch is for, well, development. If what goes there needs to be reverted, that's not a problem. We have until September (our self imposed release date) to decide. BTW, the more I look at systemd, the more I think of busybox. Good is some places, but not really good for all. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:21:54 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: LFS Developers Mailinglist lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd . . I understand your concerns, but the development branch is for, well, development. If what goes there needs to be reverted, that's not a problem. [...] Yes, and 'experimental' branches are often best for such degree/extent of experiment. Maybe I'm just so used to git - where e.g. branches are so 'inexpensive' - that it seems an absolute no-brainer that work of this type would be done on a separate branch. And in any event, you're still aiming at adding an ifs'n'buts layer to the lfs-main book - the type of thing that has been argued against many many times. I do think that the idea is of interest: but it's really a candidate for a separate branch/project. rgds, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
akhiezer wrote: And in any event, you're still aiming at adding an ifs'n'buts layer to the lfs-main book - the type of thing that has been argued against many many times. Yes, if we end up doing this, it is a major change from our traditional methodology. It would, in fact, be LFS 8.0. I do think that the idea is of interest: but it's really a candidate for a separate branch/project. So far I've just added some packages that sysd needs but doesn't change the essence of the book a lot. Adding sysd is where things really start to change. After I do some work in my sandbox, I may indeed create a separate branch, which, btw, is not really much more than the git method: cd ../../branches; svn cp ../trunk/BOOK experimental -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
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 sysviniteudev systemd-udevdudevd udevadm udevadm halt halt init init poweroff poweroff reboot reboot runlevel runlevel shutdown shutdown telinit telinit I did a little more checking. If eudev is dropped and the full systemd is substituted in a standard LFS environment, the following have name collisions: 1 /usr/share/man/man8/shutdown.8 2 /usr/share/man/man8/poweroff.8 3 /usr/share/man/man8/telinit.8 4 /usr/share/man/man8/halt.8 5 /usr/share/man/man8/runlevel.8 6 /usr/share/man/man8/reboot.8 7 /sbin/reboot 8 /sbin/halt 9 /sbin/runlevel 10 /sbin/telinit 11 /sbin/poweroff 12 /sbin/shutdown 13 /sbin/init I still need to check out boot scripts and other initialization, but combining these boot systems with small script to set the desired system seems doable. I don't think it would be necessary to even ask the user to choose at build time. Nothing's set, but it does look promising right now. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
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
[lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
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 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
On 03/25/2014 05:22 PM, 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. It's named systemd-udevd and it's installed in /lib/systemd. 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 -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
Armin K. wrote: On 03/25/2014 05:22 PM, 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. It's named systemd-udevd and it's installed in /lib/systemd. Ah, yes. The change in name seems unnecessary, but I remember now. A symlink might be appropriate if this approach turns out to be feasible. -- Bruce 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. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
