[arch-general] Arch's move to systemd integration
David C. Rankin
drankinatty at suddenlinkmail.com
Mon Jul 23 01:03:38 EDT 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/22/2012 04:04 PM, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Am 22.07.2012 22:59, schrieb David C. Rankin:
>> > If the systemd benefits outweigh the benefits of the current init and the
>> > time-cost to the community to undergo the change is small, then it is worth
>> > doing.
> Once again: The proposed change is not about systemd. The maintainer(s)
> plan to support both the classic initscripts as well as systemd (see
> here ). So don't mix these things here. For now we are talking about
> the split up of "rc.conf".
Well, if there is a split needed to support systemd, that's fine as long as
rc.conf remains for those that don't go off chasing it. Further, if the 3 files
you are taking about contain information that is used in rc.conf, why not work
this 'integration' to a point where rc.conf simply sources the info it needs
from the systemd files. Not needed, but if it makes sense long term.
As long as we are talking about either rc.conf or hostname, vconsole.conf, and
locale.conf, if the files are reasonably commented so that a user who knows
rc.conf can find his way though the other three for a systemd setup, then there
is no issue. The files are small, and easy to deal with.
Like I said, if the move is basically transparent to the community and systemd
has some 'must have' feature that everyone will use, then a migration there is a
good way to then be able to compare and contrast user experience with both.
I can't see a cleaner way than a single rc.conf, but I don't have objection to
looking at 3 instead of one.
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the arch-general