[arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd
thomas at archlinux.org
Wed Aug 15 11:56:00 EDT 2012
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.
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...
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-dev-public