akhiezer wrote: >> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:22:38 -0500 >> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> >> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org> >> Subject: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd >> >> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could >> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package >> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions: >> >> systemd sysvinit eudev >> udevd >> udevadm udevadm >> halt halt >> init init >> poweroff poweroff >> reboot reboot >> runlevel runlevel >> shutdown shutdown >> telinit telinit >> >> I don't know if udevd is missing from the systemd page or is really not >> installed when doing a systemd build, but I suspect it has just been >> omitted from the page. >> >> In any case, this cursory look indicates to me that both could be >> installed with custom names and a script written to swap the names and >> reboot to the desired system. I also suspect a sysV initialization >> could use the systemd version of udev and eudev would not be necessary. >> >> I have not looked at boot scripts or possibly different build options in >> other programs, but wanted to throw out the idea for comments. >> > > > I'd recommend any such 'lfs-combined' be done in a third branch, separate > from lfs-systemd and lfs-main, and using merges from the latter two: > and *not* try to do all three in a single branch. > > > If instead all three approaches are (attempted to be) done directly on a > single branch, then inter alia you're practising the kind of 'layering' > that has been argued against (incl by yrself?) quite often - e.g. not > having multilib, avoid too many "ifs'n'buts", &c&c, as it would obscure > central educational goals of the book, &usw. > > > Certainly I think, in this respect at least, that it'd be wise of Armin to > not give up the separate lfs-systemd branch lightly. Also, sysd is still in > quite a state of flux; so even more reason to keep it essentially contained > in its own branch. > > > If the three-branches approach appears to be too 'difficult' ... then > maybe that's even more reason to be cautious about any notions of doing > everything on a single branch.
I understand your concerns, but the development branch is for, well, development. If what goes there needs to be reverted, that's not a problem. We have until September (our self imposed release date) to decide. BTW, the more I look at systemd, the more I think of busybox. Good is some places, but not really good for all. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
