[arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd

[Thomas Bächler]

Am 14.08.2012 17:15, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault
> <stephane at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
>> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough
>> for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the
>> 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts
>> on two init systems.
>>
>> Any objections to start the migration process ?
> 
> A big +1 from me.
> 
> As to the future of initscripts: I am (as I keep saying) committed to
> maintaining it as long as it is part of our repos (at some point I
> expect it will not be any more). We'll make sure that the transition
> to systemd is such that initscripts can still be installed for the
> time being if that is desired. However, I expect that third-party
> packages (gnome, NetworkManager, polkit, etc.) at some point will stop
> working well without systemd, so that is something to consider if you
> stick with initscripts.

I also prefer taking the slow route here. As someone who is yet to
migrate to systemd, I don't know what kind of quirks it still has.

My plan:

1) Tell people to migrate to systemd.
2) Make new installations use systemd by default.
3) Stop holding back packages because of systemd. For example: polkit
requires either consolekit or systemd. Drop ck support, use systemd.
This means that most desktop users will need to switch to systemd - but
a server that doesn't even have dbus will (for the time being) keep
working with initscripts.
4) Drop initscripts as soon as udev starts breaking without systemd.

I guess it will take lots of time before we do 4).



Another point: Someone on the so-called "official" G+ stated:

"Arch will move to systemd only boot process..."

As Tom stated (and he maintains systemd and initscripts), this is not
true. This angers me because

1) Something untrue and/or unprecise is being posted on the "official" G+.
2) There are claims that this G+ is official. Neither our website, nor
any place else states that there is an official Arch G+ (or Facebook)
page and links to it. This G+ has not been approved by developers to be
"official". Yet, someone here claims to be the official G+.

This must stop. If we present ourselves on social media, I want it to be
approved on the private mailing list first. And if someone starts that
discussion, it will get a big -1 from me.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20120815/80545611/attachment-0001.asc>