[arch-general] Arch's move to systemd integration

Myra Nelson myra.nelson at hughes.net
Sun Jul 22 16:14:13 EDT 2012

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Karol Babioch <karol at babioch.de> wrote:
> Hi,
> Am 22.07.2012 21:26, schrieb Nicholas MIller:
>> Though your(Karol) right, that a few bytes doesn't matter in the days of
>> TB+ hard drives, it might be something worth looking at (how much more
>> space will systemd use/save).  And on some systems (mostly older) it may
>> matter.
> No, it doesn't. A file can't take less space than a single block, which
> defaults to 4k (at least this is what "/etc/mke2fs.conf" tells me). So
> any separation of a small file like "rc.conf" into a few even smaller
> files will take up even a little bit more space.
> But I don't think that there is a system on this planet, which runs a
> recent version of Linux (and/or Arch), which can't afford to have a few
> more files like this. I know some of you will come up with some examples
> now that I've challenged it, but I think we can agree that a few
> kilobytes on the hard drive back and forth are not worth talking about.
> Furthermore that's not what KISS is about. KISS is about keeping it
> simple, not about keeping it small (in regard to files sizes). Although
> there are cases this might be the same, I don't see why this should be
> the case here.
> Personally I don't understand what this complaining is all about. It is
> much more simple to have dedicated files for tasks like setting the
> console font than having it in one "big" file specific to Arch.
> Furthermore it will be some sort of a standard, so you won't have to
> look up something as trivial as setting the hostname in case you are
> dealing with another distribution once in a while.
> I really don't get it: I'm willing to accept that not everyone is eager
> to get in touch with systemd and that there are some points you could
> criticize systemd for, but in this case we are talking about splitting
> up an Arch specific file in order to be in compliance with upstream
> and/or other distributions. I can't see why this is something that's
> worth this much discussion considering the fact that the "old" syntax
> will still be supported.
> Best regards,
> Karol Babioch


My comparison to file size was meant to be extended to the complete
removal of rc.d and conf.d or the removal of several files in those
directories. Maybe that concept is not that important. I didn't mean
to imply the KISS principle was about size, just trying to imply this
change doesn't necessarily violate that principle. My main argument
was "If I can get this done anyone can. It's not that much different,
it's just different". It appears to me to be just as portable as the
current setup and it might just save the Devs some time, and provide
better integration with upstream devs. Another salient point is just
because it's been done that way since Moses was a baby doesn't make it
right. Sorry if I offend anyone.

Sorry about the links.


Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

More information about the arch-general mailing list