[arch-projects] [initscripts] So it's gone
xakepa10 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 11:50:09 EST 2013
Sorry about the link, that would be because of my touchpad changing the
cursor position when I hover my hand over it while typing, it's very
sensitive and a bit weird.
> It was not easy to follow your FAQ ..
That would be my fault, English is not my native language but there is the
fact that the Wiki is not complete. In fact it is just a temporary solution
until the main website up and operational and the only reason to have it is
that I can add/remove/change content platform independent. I used to keep
some files on my main PC but after a disk failure and no backup files to
restore from I'm not taking the chance again.
The approach I choosed, to avoid systemd, is because some software doesn't
work (e.g. dbus, networkmanager) even if systemd is present on the system.
Check the topics like the one about OpenRC on Arch and more specificly
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1192933#p1192933 and you will
see what I'm talking about so it's not just initscripts that need to be
systemd compatible. And to ensure that everything is smooth I had to
maintain a lot of packages, and preferable not linked against systemd so if
the package relies on a systemd library I can use ldd to check binaries and
find which one I have to work on to make my job easier.
And about the tmpfiles implementation I think Debian has their own 
which can be adopted and used within the initscripts.
About the manual pages. It appears that you are shipping the logoutd man
pages, you are removing the login.1, that's the closest one. And the binary
ofcourse. But go list the package and see what you will find. Anyway,
the point in my expression on the Wiki is that manual pages should be
provided from the software package itself, not the man-pages package
which contains reference to /usr/local and such which is not true and is
some people say that wrong documentation is worst than none.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 14/02/13 23:28, Ivailo wrote:
> > Greetings!
> > 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
> > 
> > https://bitbucket.org/braindamaged/udev
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the arch-projects