On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Ivailo <xakepa10@gmail.com> wrote:
My general advice would be to find (or create) a fork not based on systemdphobia, but on some practical need. Are you calling people who don't like systemd insane? Excuse me but you should pick your words more carefully. The fact that I don't agree with some implementations decisions about systemd makes me insane? Really?
No, I did not say that at all. If you have rational technical reasons to disagree with systemd there is nothing wrong with that. However, a lot of changes I see floating about in various forks are seemingly based on a desire to avoid systemd at all cost, which is what I am critical of.
You probably know about the "LSD" thingy that is floating around the net but you don't know what I, one of the first to step into it, think about Arch Linux and the move to systemd. You know that many packages are linked against systemd so I've tried maintaining packages without systemd support, or rather that use other udev fork[3], and link packages against it.
In most cases there is no technical reason to avoid linking against systemd. The only thing linking against systemd entails is that you'll have a tiny library installed which will do nothing in case systemd itself is not installed and running. From a technical point of view, forking udev and rebuilding packages to avoid libsystemd-daemon.so is a complete waste of time. Similarly, reimplementing in bash what various systemd tools does for you (tmpfiles++) also does not make any sense from a technical point of view. At best all you have achieved is to duplicate the exact same functionality, but more likely you have introduced some bugs or incompatibilities. Of course, you are free to do all these things. But if your only reason is "i don't want anything from the systemd porject installed on my machine", then I stand by my claim that it is irrational, and that people would be better off using a different project.
But that was because systemd was already in place and even the initscripts rely on it being installed and some packages shipped in the repositories didn't support other authentication methods other than the systemd-logind. But keeping up with Arch Linux was not easy, I was maintaining ~200 packages and when/if I don't catch up with Arch Linux upgrades things started falling apart.
Maintaining 200 packages was definitely unnecessary, at worst you should have needed to maintain about four (and now also the rc scripts).
So I've decided to rely on my own and make my own distribution. But there are some things you don't know about the LSD distribution, probably because you haven't searched for more information about it, please read http://less-systemd-gnulinux.wikia.co/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_is... to find out what I think even Arch Linux is missing/doing wrong and then judge my work and me personally.
The link was broken, but I think I found the page you intended to link to (.com rather than .co). It was not easy to follow your FAQ, in particular how you differ from Arch. I guess this could be what you mean: "some god damn rules are borke", but it wasn't really specific enough for me to understand. Also you appear to "ship correct manual pages, not like Arch Linux". I don't know what to make of that... Good luck, Tom