[arch-projects] [initscripts] So it's gone
allan at archlinux.org
Thu Feb 14 09:42:14 EST 2013
On 14/02/13 23:28, Ivailo wrote:
> I'm the maintainer of the initscripts fork and I already explained my
> self in the blog of Allan McRae.
>> My general advice would be to find (or create) a fork not based on
> systemdphobia, but on some practical need.
> Are you calling people who don't like systemd insane? Excuse me but you
> should pick your words more carefully. The fact that I don't agree with
> some implementations decisions about systemd makes me insane? Really?
> Yeah, I don't like it being the
> all-mighty-init-system-requiring-xyz-and-providing-zyx-replacment but I
> do like a few things such as the services format which is very simple to
> follow and the fact that basicly there isn't a runlevel (services being
> started when needed along with their dependencies).
> You probably know about the "LSD" thingy that is floating around the net
> but you don't know what I, one of the first to step into it, think about
> Arch Linux and the move to systemd. You know that many packages are
> linked against systemd so I've tried maintaining packages without
> systemd support, or rather that use other udev fork, and link
> packages against it. But that was because systemd was already in place
> and even the initscripts rely on it being installed and some packages
> shipped in the repositories didn't support other authentication methods
> other than the systemd-logind. But keeping up with Arch Linux was not
> easy, I was maintaining ~200 packages and when/if I don't catch up with
> Arch Linux upgrades things started falling apart. So I've decided to
> rely on my own and make my own distribution. But there are some things
> you don't know about the LSD distribution, probably because you haven't
> searched for more information about it, please read
> to find out what I think even Arch Linux is missing/doing wrong and
> then judge my work and me personally.
>  https://github.com/fluxer/initscripts
Ask and judgement will come...
Once I manage to get to your wiki - as you can not even provide a
correct address - I see this statement:
"But then again, the packages ship correct manual pages, not like Arch
with a link to this package:
So what is your point? We should ship the man pages for the tools we
remove? Or it is just you do not understand bash enough to see the
binaries were removed right above where the man pages are removed?
More information about the arch-projects