[arch-general] When will Arch switch to Systemd
yaro at marupa.net
Fri Jan 21 18:51:22 EST 2011
On Friday, January 21, 2011 05:42:17 pm Ray Rashif wrote:
> > indeed, and i'd mostly agree. however while im not a developer for
> > archlinux, i wouldnt waste time on obsolete systems when a better
> > alternative saves me time; you may end up maintaining the initscripts
> > yourself. keep that in mind.
> > the point of systemd is to make ALL of our lives easier, not more
> > difficult.
> Right. Anyway, you might want to realise that nobody who "matters" has
> had - up to this point - anything to say about "switching to systemd".
> Mostly because none of them have the time (so there is still hope).
> You can always file an FR in the tracker if you want to gain some
> progress for your enthusiasm, or even get an ultimatum.
I should also point out that simplicity as defined by Arch is not about making
the life of the user easier, but for making the SYSTEM simpler. Again, systemd
doesn't fit with that model at all.
You can read that right on the wiki.
You think SysV Init is a pile? Fine, install systemd. I think it belongs in
[extra] in the best of times. There's really no good reason to make it part of
base in [core] when all it does is something udev and hal do already, and a
feature only a minority of Arch users are likely to actually use
(RAID/LVM/Encryption support, while useful or even popular, can't honestly be
in the majority of Arch installs.)
This wasn't aimed at you, Ray, but the guy you were responding, but you were
makign some good points on your own?
Have I also mentioned that despite all the features systemd might bring, it's
still unnecessary in light of the fact that SysVInit with initscripts STILL
works perfectly fine?
If it isn't broken, don't fix it. We put grub2 in [extra], not [core], for the
same reason we really should put systemd in [extra] and not [core].
More information about the arch-general