[arch-general] systemd new dependencies impede using OpenRC

[Eduardo Machado]

2015-07-02 18:46 GMT-03:00 Daniel Micay <danielmicay at gmail.com>:

> > Now, it would be technically possible to replace *systemd* in base with a
> > generic "init-system" which could be provided by both *systemd* and
> *openrc*,
> > but that would make things much more complicated and *much* more effort
> to
> > maintain.
>
> Packages don't have a dependency on systemd because they need an init
> system. They have a dependency on systemd IPC interfaces and/or
> libraries not provided by openrc. If they depend on systemd without
> needing something like this, it's a (very minor) bug to report.
>
> Supporting alternative implementations of those interfaces (like
> Debian's systemd-shim) would mean a lot of extra work across the
> distribution.
>
> Arch supports one specific /bin/sh implementation, one standard C
> library, one standard C++ library, one C++ exception model, one
> toolchain for building the system, etc. It also tends to only support
> one specific implementation of a command-line utility as the main tool
> and others have to be namespaced. Packages like util-linux/coreutils
> aren't split into little pieces and there's no equivalent to
> update-alternatives. Sure, packages like musl, libc++, libc++abi and
> busybox are in the repositories but not in a way that can actually
> replace anything in the base system, it just lives alongside it without
> being used by any other packages.
>
> Arch only ever supported one init system until the transition period to
> systemd where it supported two. The old initscripts adopted systemd
> utilities like systemd-tmpfiles before going away anyway, and the old
> scripts were still supported. It was convergence to a single supported
> init system rather than two choices for the base system living alongside
> each other.
>
> Making technical decisions and then going through with them with proper
> integration into other packages is the only way that things are going to
> be polished. The alternative is a *lot* of extra complexity, development
> effort and bugs.
>
>
Hi Daniel,

i wanna apologize if i misspelled something and made more damage than good.

And this post of yours is what i am certain that all the users would like
to see, and i have to commed.
It was a kind of polite and really technical note.

I know that when we work in projects like this, we work almost for love,
it's demanding and sometimes we get frustrating with the feeling that our
work are not getting recognized.
I'm sure it is not the case for anyone here, but when we see a phrase like
"the user opinion has no weight" it generates the same feeling that i tried
to describe above.

Note that I am not advocating any solution. but what i would like to hear
is that de devs heard the users, technically and non-technically opinions,
weighted them with the pros and cons, and them choosed a solution with some
benefits.

Didn't you agree that this is a really better statement? ;)


Best regards, and again, sorry, i didn't want to polemize.