[arch-general] base stuff

Grigorios Bouzakis grbzks at xsmail.com
Thu Apr 7 14:51:03 EDT 2011


Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 18:13:04 Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
>> Thomas S Hatch <thatch45 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Yes the systemd topic keeps popping up, right now we don't know
>> > if certain upstream changes are going to force Arch into using systemd 
> or
>> > not.
>> 
>> I dont think such a topic keeps popping up.
>> In fact I dont remember reading a discussion between Arch developers 
> about
>> it, ever.
>> I could probably go on ranting about stuff thats been shoved down users
>> mouths the last years for months but its futile and a waste of time.
>> 
>
> It was a discussion that popped up here, a debate between users who felt 
> replacing sysvinit was completely unneeded to those who seemed to want to 
> use systemd for some useless, unneeded feature maybe less than 1% of 
> Arch users were going to actually use.
>

I guess you mean http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/32759
Didnt enjoy skimming through it much, except maybe this part:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.arch.general/32874
And indeed, it was just user talk. The only developer who got even
remotely interested in participating got flamed.

>> > As for adding SELinux support in base but keeping it turned off by
>> > default, +1
>> 
>> Although this isnt a vote, mine was for no selinux at all, so its just 1.
>> :)
>
> Selinux is another unneeded thing, but even worse is that it practically 
> requires a doctorate in computer science to manipulate. Can't deny its 
> security, though. +1 to leaving it out of Arch, not that anyone's asking Arch 
> to.
>

All these seem like the natural sideffects of Arch's growth along with
the (d)evolution (as in degeneration) of Linux.

----
Greg


More information about the arch-general mailing list