[arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd
teg at jklm.no
Fri Jan 21 08:18:37 EST 2011
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Yaro Kasear <yaro at marupa.net> wrote:
> I certainly can't fault that part. That's probably open source's greatest
> strength. ESR called it "Linus' Law" and he explained it succinctly in the
> CatB paper. My concern is about how cooperative and willing to fix known
> issues upstream will have. You can write patches, but only one person (Or
> possibly, a group of people.) can approve it for an official inclusion with
> upstream. How many patches has Lennart rejected on systemd? How many has he
> accepted? Of those has he rejected has he given a verifiable reason?
I agree that this is an important question. If you look at the
mailinglist archives you'll see that almost all patches were accepted
(possibly after some suggested changes). In my opinion, the patches
that were not accepted were dealt with in an appropriate way
(alternate solutions were found to valid problems). It should also be
mentioned that systemd is not a one-man-show, but several people from
different distributions have commit rights.
> I admit to never using RAID/LVM/ENCRYPTION. But last I checked init had
> nothing whatsoever to do with how /dev is populated or managed. We have udev
> for that, and udev doesn't care what init system we use. All inits do is call
> udev when their scripts tell them to. I don't see how this makes systemd more
> viable than SysV when udev is what controls this instead, as udev works the
> same no matter if its SysV, Upstart, or systemd.
> Perhaps you can clarify init's role in device population besides running udev
> when appropriate, as SysV is already capable of that?
I'd suggest having a look in your /etc/rc.sysinit and /etc/rc.shutdown
how we deal with this in Arch (I'm sure if I tried to give an overview
I would quickly get something wrong and confuse everyone).
More information about the arch-general