On 23 February 2016 at 09:43, Eric Vidal wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm the creator of Obarun
> I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all package
> builded without systemd support.
It's good to see people contributing to the Arch community with
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:43:41 +0400
Eric Vidal wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm the creator of Obarun
> I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all
> package builded without systemd support. All this package have the
> name xxx-systemd to avoid trouble
On 23.02.2016 08:43, Eric Vidal wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm the creator of Obarun
> I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all package
> builded without systemd support. All this package have the name xxx-systemd
> to avoid trouble with original package. Package
On 23 February 2016 at 08:32, Frank Schaffhaeuser
wrote:
> This topic again? Seriously? The last 'discussion' from Feb.8th thankfully
> just died down
> and apart from spamming subscriber's inboxes had no useful effect...
> Please, not again
Hang on, I absolutely agree
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:43:41 + Eric Vidale...@obarun.org wrote
Hello everyone,
I'm the creator of Obarun
I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all package
builded without systemd support. All this package have the name xxx-systemd to
avoid trouble
It seems we've come to an understanding in this thread, which is great. But
I would recommend further OpenRC development be discussed elsewhere
(perhaps aur-general or the PKGBUILD requests subforum?).
Thanks,
Max
On 15-02-16 16:54, João Miguel wrote:
A 2016-02-14T23:13:44 +0100, LoneVVolf escreveu:
On 14-02-16 17:17, João Miguel wrote:
Then I shall contact Artoo and add the packages back to the AUR as Nous
suggested. Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted by
Manjaro is less trusted than
A 2016-02-14T23:13:44 +0100, LoneVVolf escreveu:
> On 14-02-16 17:17, João Miguel wrote:
> >Then I shall contact Artoo and add the packages back to the AUR as Nous
> >suggested. Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted by
> >Manjaro is less trusted than the AUR. Nevertheless, I do
> > Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted by
> > Manjaro is less trusted than the AUR.
> They are completely different. An unofficial repository of non-AUR packages
> is for installing binary packages that have no affiliation with Arch Linux.
> I think it's pretty obvious why that
On 14-02-16 17:17, João Miguel wrote:
Then I shall contact Artoo and add the packages back to the AUR as
Nous suggested. Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted
by Manjaro is less trusted than the AUR. Nevertheless, I do like the
AUR, and packages being there might help. Have a
> > There are 4 mirrors for an unnoficial user repository with packages that
> > are officially used in Manjaro.
> > > 3. Work on 1 and 2 until you feel like you have a clearly superior
> method
> > The method already existed, I just wanted to make it visible.
> I think you misunderstood. I was
Sorry if I was too harsh. But the methods are for fundamentally
different purposes, apg's intends to remain compatible with systemd and
is backed up by the AUR, while artoo's intends to replace systemd and
has its own repositories elsewhere. AFAIK, artoo tried to convince apg
to join forces, with
> > I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release
> > distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or
> > sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like
> > KDE4 and Gnome3 to work without systemd (I don't mention KDE5
On 02/13/2016 04:17 PM, João Miguel wrote:
>>> I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release
>>> distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or
>>> sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like
>>> KDE4 and Gnome3 to
> (If your goal is to *learn*, then yes $DEITY yes, do that, but for
> practical things... you need some more concrete and tangible goals to
> challenge the decision of systemd-only for Arch Linux.)
The decision was to have systemd as a default, not to forbid any other
init system to be mentioned.
On 02/13/2016 05:35 PM, João Miguel wrote:
>> (If your goal is to *learn*, then yes $DEITY yes, do that, but for
>> practical things... you need some more concrete and tangible goals to
>> challenge the decision of systemd-only for Arch Linux.)
> The decision was to have systemd as a default, not
> If you want to make OpenRC easier to use on Arch, here's how:
> 1. Get more involved in the AUR to develop more/better OpenRC-specific
> packages
There are 4 mirrors for an unnoficial user repository with packages that
are officially used in Manjaro.
> 2. Draft a new OpenRC wiki article on your
On 2016-02-13 17:35, João Miguel wrote:
> The decision was to have systemd as a default, not to forbid any other
> init system to be mentioned. I don't agree with the OP of this thread
> when he said there should be an official version of Arch with OpenRC,
> that's too much work.
>
> I mean this:
Just throwing this out there: Given nosh's support for importing
systemd units, that one might be another viable option.
> There are 4 mirrors for an unnoficial user repository with packages that
> are officially used in Manjaro.
> > 3. Work on 1 and 2 until you feel like you have a clearly superior
method
> The method already existed, I just wanted to make it visible.
I think you misunderstood. I was not
On 11-02-16 17:12, João Miguel wrote:
now there are no AUR packages for OpenRC.
You are wrong, please be more specific.
This is current situation:
- run AL without using systemd as PID1 / init system :
Aur and AL wiki have everything you need for that.
You will still have systemd installed
> >now there are no AUR packages for OpenRC.
> You are wrong, please be more specific.
Sorry, I mean Artoo's way is no longer available in the AUR. openrc-core
and all init srcipts he posted are gone (because of the bad community
pressure, which was my point).
> This is current situation:
>
> -
>
> It's ok now not because of the wiki and the AUR, but thanks to the
> existence of systemd-free.org. It had to be created because of the
> above, which would'nt have happened with a better community.
So far I've not seen anyone in this thread, or in the replies by Poettering
referenced by
> > It's ok now not because of the wiki and the AUR, but thanks to the
> > existence of systemd-free.org. It had to be created because of the
> > above, which would'nt have happened with a better community.
>
> So far I've not seen anyone in this thread, or in the replies by Poettering
>
I had asked Nous and Artoo whether it was worth placing those packages
back in the AUR, and they said it wasn't, so I gave up. But maybe
systemd-free.org can be referred instead of the AUR.
About "the right way", I'm not sure it's true, for example, the Wiki
lists at least 3 ways to use an nvidia
> Someone already talked about putting it back in the forums. They were
> turned down because of those points («no reason for 2 methods», etc.).
> This among other things (which are evident in any discussion in Arch
> about OpenRC) signals a bad community.
When it comes to Linux there are often
>
>
> > when the (in MHO excellent) choice to package systemd by default has
> > already been made and it works perfectly well?
> I never said systemd shouldn't be packaged by default!
Apologies, poor wording on my part. That wasn't meant to imply you ever
did. I understood you wanted an
I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release
distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or
sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like
KDE4 and Gnome3 to work without systemd (I don't mention KDE5 since nobody
has
On 02/12/2016 11:50 PM, Toyam Cox wrote:
> I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release
> distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or
> sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like
> KDE4 and Gnome3 to work without
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:12:24 PM CST João Miguel wrote:
>
> I agree with you, the devs have more work to do, etc., but the cause of
> these never-ending discussions must be pointed out: community attitude.
> Bear with me for a moment:
>
> OpenRC was working fine in Arch. Artoo's way was
> It is tough enough for TUs to voluntarily keep the packages in the repos as
> close to current upstream as they do already, and adding an unnecessary
> layer of additional support for a small percentage of the user base who
> wish to have a second init system available, because they think it is
On 02/10/2016 12:53 PM, Jack L. Frost wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote:
>> What does this mean? It means that I prefer a linux distribution that
>> supports the newest changes in the linux development. Systemd is one of
>> thesee changes. Systemd
> Other way around: systemd may at some future point depend on a
> Linux-only IPC protocol. (One assumes that this would be indirectly via
> a DBUS-like client library, but whatever...)
My brain went completely derp there, so yeah, disregard that statement.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:44:34PM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> "change is not progress" has no bearing on whether systemd is a net
> positive or not. The person you responded to explicitly said -- in the
> very part you quoted, no less! -- "systemd improves a lot of stuff", so
> clearly
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Ivan wrote:
> Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing
> on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that
> use Arch Linux.
> Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor
> to disapprove
On 02/08/2016 07:27 AM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> I still don't get what makes OpenRC so great. Doesn't it still depend
> entirely on SysV Init?
By default it uses sysvinit as PID1. That's all that it does.
If it makes you unhappy you can easily use s6 or runit as PID1 ... or
write your own.
> That
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:13:49AM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Change is not Progress.
>
> Are you, by chance, confusing sysvinit with debian's sysv-rc or
> something similar?
A lot of people make two huge mistakes in such debates:
1) sysvinit != Debian's initscripts.
2) sysvinit vs systemd
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote:
> Hello everone,
> First of all I want to remind you that systemd is no longer an init system.
> Systemd has become to be much more than just starting/stopping some daemons.
> You must see systemd with every part. You cannot just
On Mon, 08 Feb 2016, Guus Snijders wrote:
> Op 8 feb. 2016 01:59 schreef "Ivan" :
> >
> > Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing
> > on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that
> > use Arch Linux.
> > Note: I am not here to
Hi Ivan,
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Ivan wrote:
>> That said, how about a archbang-like approach?
> Definitely not a bad idea, but I would need a team that would help me
> maintain it. All Arch Linux packages are compiled with
> systemd support, so lots of recompiling and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
A note about using shell scripts in systemd:
Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d
compatibility that is disabled in arch. Although you have to write
unit files, you can start scripts, so you do not really lose
flexibility.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
The isolation is not fully cgroup based, also cgroups require/prefer a
single manager, this is going to be enforced in kernel someday, so it
is better for init to do it as it is a parent of everything.
PrivateTmp uses namespaces, so it is a real
On 9 February 2016 at 17:34, Guus Snijders wrote:
> Op 9 feb. 2016 17:27 schreef "Michał Zegan" :
>>
>
>> A note about using shell scripts in systemd:
>> Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d
>> compatibility that is disabled
Op 9 feb. 2016 17:27 schreef "Michał Zegan" :
>
> A note about using shell scripts in systemd:
> Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d
> compatibility that is disabled in arch. Although you have to write
> unit files, you can start scripts, so you
Op 9 feb. 2016 17:52 schreef "Damjan Georgievski" :
>
> On 9 February 2016 at 17:34, Guus Snijders wrote:
> > Op 9 feb. 2016 17:27 schreef "Michał Zegan" :
> >>
> >
> >> Although you have to write
> >> unit files, you can start
Hello everone,
First of all I want to remind you that systemd is no longer an init system.
Systemd has become to be much more than just starting/stopping some daemons.
You must see systemd with every part. You cannot just strip systemd from
every package, ignore the other parts of systemd and run
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:26:57 +0100, Michał Zegan wrote:
>A note about using shell scripts in systemd:
>Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d
>compatibility that is disabled in arch. Although you have to write
>unit files, you can start scripts, so you do not really lose
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 06:02:34AM +0100, Ivan wrote:
> > Hypothetically, if Arch Linux was to adopt an alternative init, it's a
> > process that does not happen overnight. Through time, solutions will
> > surface. I'm not a magic lamp genie that has all
On Mon, 08 Feb 2016, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> I still don't get what makes OpenRC so great. Doesn't it still depend
> entirely on SysV Init? That ALONE makes me want to keep it off my system.
> If it makes us fall back on an init system that is frankly backward and was
> badly in need of replacement
Op 8 feb. 2016 01:59 schreef "Ivan" :
>
> Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing
> on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that
> use Arch Linux.
> Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor
> to disapprove of
Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing
on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that
use Arch Linux.
Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor
to disapprove of current Arch choices.
So, to get to the point...
I would like to
No. Systemd is here to stay. Maintaining another's init would be a waste of
time and too much work. Plus, why on earth would people want to waste time
maintaining another init system when the one we have works? Is there
anything lacking in systemd that is available in openrc?
On Feb 7, 2016 18:11,
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:37:57 +
mick wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700
> Devon Smith wrote:
>
> > Is there anything lacking in systemd
> A clear, logical and consistant naming convention for the services, units,
> etc used by systemd, on a
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Leonid Isaev
wrote:
> That's why I still use Debian 5 stable in a container as a print server...
> Cups
> 2.0+ is a real piece of crap. And yes, these org.xxx.xxx names _are_ stupid
> especially for filenames. But after using modern
On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700
Devon Smith wrote:
> Is there anything lacking in systemd
A clear, logical and consistant naming convention for the services, units, etc
used by systemd, on a number of occasions I have spent an hour or more looking
for the script that
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:28:36AM +, mick wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 20:51:50 -0600
> Doug Newgard wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:37:57 +
> > mick wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700
> > > Devon Smith
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Patrick Burroughs (Celti) wrote:
> The big question you have to answer, the one you need to start with, is:
>
> Why is it in the Arch dev's interests to maintain two init systems and
> that much more area for incompatibility, that many more packages and
> bugs to wrangle?
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 01:58:19 +0100
Ivan wrote:
> Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing
> on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that
> use Arch Linux.
> Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor
> to disapprove
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:58:19AM +0100, Ivan wrote:
> 1. Udev...
You don't need udev in most cases. For instance, on a workstation, you can
simply create device nodes by hand.
> 2. Packaging...
Not an issue really.
> 2.1. Repositories... core, extra, community and multilib would not
On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 20:51:50 -0600
Doug Newgard wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:37:57 +
> mick wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700
> > Devon Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Is there anything lacking in systemd
> > A
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 06:02:34AM +0100, Ivan wrote:
> Hypothetically, if Arch Linux was to adopt an alternative init, it's a
> process that does not happen overnight. Through time, solutions will
> surface. I'm not a magic lamp genie that has all the answers.
Then you have to ask yourself,
I still don't get what makes OpenRC so great. Doesn't it still depend
entirely on SysV Init? That ALONE makes me want to keep it off my system.
If it makes us fall back on an init system that is frankly backward and was
badly in need of replacement then I don't see why it should be considered
an
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:58:19AM +0100, Ivan wrote:
> Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing
> on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that
> use Arch Linux.
> ...
It's not reasonable to demand Arch devs maintain several init systems.
You
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:58:19AM +0100, Ivan wrote:
>
> > I realize that there are a lot more things to be discussed about this.
>
> And here is a can of worms. What are you going to do with logind and various
> desktop integrations? What about
On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Devon Smith wrote:
> No. Systemd is here to stay. Maintaining another's init would be a waste of
> time and too much work. Plus, why on earth would people want to waste time
> maintaining another init system when the one we have works? Is there
> anything lacking in systemd
65 matches
Mail list logo