[arch-general] Telinit?

[David Rosenstrauch]

Thanks much for the detailed explanation.  Response below.


On 8/16/20 10:38 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> The sysvcompat symlinks still installed are:
> - halt
> - reboot
> - poweroff
> - shutdown
> - init
> 
> These programs are generically useful on fully systemd systems, and
> systemd documents them as such:
> 
> "These commands are implemented in a way that preserves basic
> compatibility with the original SysV commands. systemctl(1) verbs halt,
> poweroff, reboot provide the same functionality with some additional
> features."
> 
> When it comes to telinit, the description is, rather:
> 
> "This is a legacy command available for compatibility only. It should
> not be used anymore, as the concept of runlevels is obsolete."


Hmmm ... OK.  I wasn't aware that telinit was now being considered 
legacy/deprecated.  I've habitually used it for years to drop to single 
user mode, which I do every time before I perform a system update with 
pacman.  I guess I'll have to find some other command to do the same 
using systemd.  (I think they call it rescue mode, rather than single 
user mode.)

Thanks,

DR



> It seems clear to me why it's no longer installed except when systemd is
> configured with the necessary code to interpret and convert old
> /etc/init.d and /etc/rc.d infrastructure into stubbed systemd units.
> 
> As for whether systemd should provide a split sysvcompat package that
> provides symlinks for generally useful programs styled after sysvinit,
> or, alternatively, provide the full-blown HAVE_SYSV_COMPAT initscript
> parser etc? Personally, I don't believe the split is useful anymore, as
> I believe it was originally meant for the sysvinit -> systemd migration
> period to allow having both installed at the same time and easily
> switching between the two. I'd rather remove it entirely, and fold it
> into "systemd". It's required by "base" anyway, lol.
> 
> I don't believe the intention is to provide runtime generation of
> systemd units, and I think the pkgdesc is misleadingly simple in that
> regard.
> 
> ...
> 
> Anyway, if you want to have dialogue about whether it's useful to have a
> telinit program, regardless of upstream's defaults, by all means, feel
> free to have that discussion.
> 
> But can it please not include rationalizations like "why are we
> deviating from upstream by not including it"?
>