Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Michael Fothergill]

On 24 May 2017 at 16:22, Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> On Tue, 23 May 2017 18:45:16 -0500 David Wright
>  wrote:
>
> > On Tue 23 May 2017 at 13:42:07 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >
> > > It's easier, simplistic even, to replace systemd as the init (with
> > > sysvinit or runit-init) in Stretch than it was with Jessie.
> >
> > I hope you mean simple, and not that you're being simplistic!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David.
>
> Right.  That should have been "simpler."


​I feel suitably mollified.

MF​


> I should proof read my posts
> better.
>
> B
>
>

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Patrick Bartek]

On Tue, 23 May 2017 18:45:16 -0500 David Wright
 wrote:

> On Tue 23 May 2017 at 13:42:07 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> 
> > It's easier, simplistic even, to replace systemd as the init (with
> > sysvinit or runit-init) in Stretch than it was with Jessie.
> 
> I hope you mean simple, and not that you're being simplistic!
> 
> Cheers,
> David.

Right.  That should have been "simpler."  I should proof read my posts
better.

B

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Joel Rees]

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:30:15 +0900 Joel Rees 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Bartek 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > A while ago, I initiated the "If Linux Is About Choice ..." thread
>> > about why there is no choice of inits during an initial install.
>> >
>> > Since that time, I've tested several systemd-less distros[1] as
>> > well as Stretch as replacements for my aging Wheezy system.  With
>> > Stretch my plan was to see if I could replace systemd as the init
>> > without removing it just leaving its components (some or all as
>> > necessary) to meet dependencies without it breaking the system
>>
>> ???
>
> Could you be a little more specific?  Or should I?

Thank you for being more specific.

>> > That way there would be no
>> > need for third party repos or jumping through hoops to keep a
>> > systemd-less working. I figured it would be a somewhat difficult,
>> > time consuming process. However, I made a discovery during these
>> > tests: The Debian developers had already done it for me.  They made
>> > switching from systemd as the init to sysvinit or runit easy just
>> > by issuing a couple commands. Here's what you do.
>>
>> I thought that information came out several times in the thread you
>> mention having started -- that it was possible to install the base
>> system, then disable and remove the main systemd component, just
>> leaving some of the pieces that have been picked up as dependencies
>> by other packages.
>
> That scenerio was mentioned and was known by me, but usually used to
> prevent systemd from being installed all.  But since Debian is now
> systemd dependent and doing that will cause problems.  You either have
> to use third party repos or compile stuff yourself, have local repos,
> etc just to get things to work.  I ended up with a simplier solution:
> Just treat systemd like any other dependency, then no special repos,
> compiling, etc.  And it worked!  And the Stretch developers made it
> easy to do which wasn't available with Jessie. Thank you developers.
>
> My original thread was on why there is no choice of init at install
> time. You have choices on almost everything else. Anyway, most of the
> answers were ambiguous, a few acrimonious.  No matter.
>
>> Maybe the discussion of using more advanced techniques to keep from
>> ever installing systemd in the first place hid the information about
>> the removal approach.
>
> Too many hoops to jump through to eliminate systemd if major
> components (GNOME, udev, udisks2, policykit-1, etc) have it (or parts of
> it) as dependencies.  Just look at all Devuan had to go through to do
> it.
>
>> If so, it would seem to be worthwhile to have this separate thread,
>> as well.
>
> I don't think it would do any good.  Debian has chosen systemd, for
> better or worse, and I don't see that changing.  Users and
> administrators will either adapt or adopt another distro.
>
> I just hope my little "fix" is useful to someone else.  FWIW, I found
> without systemd as the init and supervisor, I have about 7.5 MB more
> free RAM.
>
> B
>

When I have enough money to replace this half-broken laptop I'm using,
I'll probably post more questions on the above.

Thanks.


--
Joel Rees

One of these days I'll get someone to pay me
to design a language that combines the best of Forth and C.
Then I'll be able to leap wide instruction sets with a single #ifdef,
run faster than a speeding infinite loop with a #define,
and stop all integer size bugs with a bare cast.

More of my delusions:
http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2017/05/do-not-pay-modern-danegeld-ransomware.html
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 08:13:43AM +0100, Michael Fothergill wrote:

[...]

> I am moved to tears by this.  It is a tribute to human ingenuity, to
> conflict resolution [...]

Please.

Either contribute something constructive or just shut up.
This kind of infantile behaviour just poisons the list for the
rest of us. On whichever side of The Big Rift we may live.

And *if* you feel the urge to vent off at other people's expense,
then at least have the courtesy of quoting properly, instead of
dumping all the original post in your reply.

- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlklN6gACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYAiACePO+BZuSIkkSYEF2uLqwE6E8E
LXgAn0r6MSsqH3NetBlVcY8XtfPKz0Xd
=Adf0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Michael Fothergill]

On 23 May 2017 at 22:19, Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:30:15 +0900 Joel Rees 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Bartek 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > A while ago, I initiated the "If Linux Is About Choice ..." thread
> > > about why there is no choice of inits during an initial install.
> > >
> > > Since that time, I've tested several systemd-less distros[1] as
> > > well as Stretch as replacements for my aging Wheezy system.  With
> > > Stretch my plan was to see if I could replace systemd as the init
> > > without removing it just leaving its components (some or all as
> > > necessary) to meet dependencies without it breaking the system
> >
> > ???
>
> Could you be a little more specific?  Or should I?
>
> > > That way there would be no
> > > need for third party repos or jumping through hoops to keep a
> > > systemd-less working. I figured it would be a somewhat difficult,
> > > time consuming process. However, I made a discovery during these
> > > tests: The Debian developers had already done it for me.  They made
> > > switching from systemd as the init to sysvinit or runit easy just
> > > by issuing a couple commands. Here's what you do.
> >
> > I thought that information came out several times in the thread you
> > mention having started -- that it was possible to install the base
> > system, then disable and remove the main systemd component, just
> > leaving some of the pieces that have been picked up as dependencies
> > by other packages.
>
> That scenerio was mentioned and was known by me, but usually used to
> prevent systemd from being installed all.  But since Debian is now
> systemd dependent and doing that will cause problems.  You either have
> to use third party repos or compile stuff yourself, have local repos,
> etc just to get things to work.  I ended up with a simplier solution:
> Just treat systemd like any other dependency, then no special repos,
> compiling, etc.  And it worked!  And the Stretch developers made it
> easy to do which wasn't available with Jessie. Thank you developers.
>

​I am moved to tears by this.  It is a tribute to human ingenuity, to
conflict resolution, to WHO mental health goals
and at the same time it represents a subtle troll bamboozling and
befuddling spam filter for the list here.

My God Bless you all!

MF​



>
> My original thread was on why there is no choice of init at install
> time. You have choices on almost everything else. Anyway, most of the
> answers were ambiguous, a few acrimonious.  No matter.
>
> > Maybe the discussion of using more advanced techniques to keep from
> > ever installing systemd in the first place hid the information about
> > the removal approach.
>
> Too many hoops to jump through to eliminate systemd if major
> components (GNOME, udev, udisks2, policykit-1, etc) have it (or parts of
> it) as dependencies.  Just look at all Devuan had to go through to do
> it.
>
> > If so, it would seem to be worthwhile to have this separate thread,
> > as well.
>
> I don't think it would do any good.  Debian has chosen systemd, for
> better or worse, and I don't see that changing.  Users and
> administrators will either adapt or adopt another distro.
>
> I just hope my little "fix" is useful to someone else.  FWIW, I found
> without systemd as the init and supervisor, I have about 7.5 MB more
> free RAM.
>
> B
>
>

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[David Wright]

On Tue 23 May 2017 at 13:42:07 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:

> It's easier, simplistic even, to replace systemd as the init (with
> sysvinit or runit-init) in Stretch than it was with Jessie.

I hope you mean simple, and not that you're being simplistic!

Cheers,
David.

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Patrick Bartek]

On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:30:15 +0900 Joel Rees 
wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Bartek 
> wrote:
> >
> > A while ago, I initiated the "If Linux Is About Choice ..." thread
> > about why there is no choice of inits during an initial install.
> >
> > Since that time, I've tested several systemd-less distros[1] as
> > well as Stretch as replacements for my aging Wheezy system.  With
> > Stretch my plan was to see if I could replace systemd as the init
> > without removing it just leaving its components (some or all as
> > necessary) to meet dependencies without it breaking the system
> 
> ???

Could you be a little more specific?  Or should I?

> > That way there would be no
> > need for third party repos or jumping through hoops to keep a
> > systemd-less working. I figured it would be a somewhat difficult,
> > time consuming process. However, I made a discovery during these
> > tests: The Debian developers had already done it for me.  They made
> > switching from systemd as the init to sysvinit or runit easy just
> > by issuing a couple commands. Here's what you do.
> 
> I thought that information came out several times in the thread you
> mention having started -- that it was possible to install the base
> system, then disable and remove the main systemd component, just
> leaving some of the pieces that have been picked up as dependencies
> by other packages.

That scenerio was mentioned and was known by me, but usually used to
prevent systemd from being installed all.  But since Debian is now
systemd dependent and doing that will cause problems.  You either have
to use third party repos or compile stuff yourself, have local repos,
etc just to get things to work.  I ended up with a simplier solution:
Just treat systemd like any other dependency, then no special repos,
compiling, etc.  And it worked!  And the Stretch developers made it
easy to do which wasn't available with Jessie. Thank you developers.

My original thread was on why there is no choice of init at install
time. You have choices on almost everything else. Anyway, most of the
answers were ambiguous, a few acrimonious.  No matter.

> Maybe the discussion of using more advanced techniques to keep from
> ever installing systemd in the first place hid the information about
> the removal approach.

Too many hoops to jump through to eliminate systemd if major
components (GNOME, udev, udisks2, policykit-1, etc) have it (or parts of
it) as dependencies.  Just look at all Devuan had to go through to do
it.

> If so, it would seem to be worthwhile to have this separate thread,
> as well.

I don't think it would do any good.  Debian has chosen systemd, for
better or worse, and I don't see that changing.  Users and
administrators will either adapt or adopt another distro.

I just hope my little "fix" is useful to someone else.  FWIW, I found
without systemd as the init and supervisor, I have about 7.5 MB more
free RAM.

B

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Patrick Bartek]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 15:18:28 +0100 Jonathan Dowland 
wrote:

> 
> Thank you for sharing your experiences!

You're welcome.

It's easier, simplistic even, to replace systemd as the init (with
sysvinit or runit-init) in Stretch than it was with Jessie.  I
know.  I tried it.  jessie required manual configuration on numerous
files after the appropriate components where installed even if you had
no intentions of removing systemd.  And then, there were problems.
Some people reported systemd init would be "reinstalled" after a basic
update/upgrade, or installing an app with a systemd dependency.  With
Stretch, this doesn't seem to be the case even with a dist-upgrade.
Nice.

B

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Brian]

On Mon 22 May 2017 at 08:28:31 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:

> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Brian  wrote:
> > On Sat 20 May 2017 at 17:06:56 +0100, Michael Fothergill wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 May 2017 at 15:59, Brad Rogers  wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:20:15 +0100
> >> > Michael Fothergill  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello Michael,
> >> >
> >> > >with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
> >> > >all this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??
> >> >
> >> > People complain about all sorts of things.  Changing something.  Not
> >> > changing something.  Sometimes, it's even the same people.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Now I see why the developers have their own mailing list...
> >
> > A misconception. They don't.
> >
> 
> Care to unpack that, so you won't be misunderstood?

Apart from -private, no list is for the exclusive use of Developers and
Maintainers.

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Joel Rees]

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Bartek  wrote:
>
> A while ago, I initiated the "If Linux Is About Choice ..." thread
> about why there is no choice of inits during an initial install.
>
> Since that time, I've tested several systemd-less distros[1] as well as
> Stretch as replacements for my aging Wheezy system.  With Stretch my
> plan was to see if I could replace systemd as the init without removing
> it just leaving its components (some or all as necessary) to meet
> dependencies without it breaking the system

???

> That way there would be no
> need for third party repos or jumping through hoops to keep a
> systemd-less working. I figured it would be a somewhat difficult, time
> consuming process. However, I made a discovery during these tests: The
> Debian developers had already done it for me.  They made switching from
> systemd as the init to sysvinit or runit easy just by issuing a couple
> commands. Here's what you do.

I thought that information came out several times in the thread you mention
having started -- that it was possible to install the base system, then
disable and remove the main systemd component, just leaving some
of the pieces that have been picked up as dependencies by other
packages.

Maybe the discussion of using more advanced techniques to keep from
ever installing systemd in the first place hid the information about the
removal approach.

If so, it would seem to be worthwhile to have this separate thread, as well.

> First, install Stretch as you normally would, systemd, et al.  I chose
> LXDE for the GUI as it has no direct systemd dependencies, and it uses
> Openbox as the window manager which I normally use in lieu of a desktop
> environment anyway.  This was quicker and easier testing-wise than
> starting with a terminal-based system as I normally would, and building
> up from there.
>
> To switch to sysvinit, as root:
>
>   apt-get install sysvinit-core
>
> and reboot.  Done!  systemd components are still on the hard drive,
> except systemd-sysv has been removed.  There is also no systemd
> supervision either as far as I can tell.
>
> To switch to runit-init is an easy 2-step process.  Do a standard
> install as before.[2]  Then add runit supervision first before
> installing runit-init. As root:
>
>   apt-get install runit-systemd
>
> reboot, then
>
>   apt-get install runit-init
>
> Reboot. Done!  The latter command removes systemd-sysv during the
> install.
>
> These new init set ups survive apt-get upgrade or dist-upgrade even if
> systemd components are upgraded.  Systemd as init does not get
> reactivated.  Tested and verified.  I can find no systemd pinning
> either.
>
> I now have two Stretch systems running in VirtualBox.  One a full LXDE
> desktop using runit for both the init and supervision, and the other
> with just Openbox and lxpanel as the GUI, and sysvinit and runit for
> supervison. No problems at all with either.
>
>
> B
>
> [1] AntiX, MX Linux, SalixOS and Void Linux.
>
> [2] With either above options, you can't go from an init other than
> systemd to another init.  apt-get install  fails due to
> systemd-sysv being missing.
>

Thanks for the report.


--
Joel Rees

One of these days I'll get someone to pay me
to design a language that combines the best of Forth and C.
Then I'll be able to leap wide instruction sets with a single #ifdef,
run faster than a speeding infinite loop with a #define,
and stop all integer size bugs with a bare cast.

More of my delusions:
http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2017/05/do-not-pay-modern-danegeld-ransomware.html
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Joel Rees]

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Brian  wrote:
> On Sat 20 May 2017 at 17:06:56 +0100, Michael Fothergill wrote:
>
>> On 20 May 2017 at 15:59, Brad Rogers  wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:20:15 +0100
>> > Michael Fothergill  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello Michael,
>> >
>> > >with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
>> > >all this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??
>> >
>> > People complain about all sorts of things.  Changing something.  Not
>> > changing something.  Sometimes, it's even the same people.
>> >
>>
>> Now I see why the developers have their own mailing list...
>
> A misconception. They don't.
>

Care to unpack that, so you won't be misunderstood?


--
Joel Rees

One of these days I'll get someone to pay me
to design a language that combines the best of Forth and C.
Then I'll be able to leap wide instruction sets with a single #ifdef,
run faster than a speeding infinite loop with a #define,
and stop all integer size bugs with a bare cast.

More of my delusions:
http://reiisi.blogspot.com/2017/05/do-not-pay-modern-danegeld-ransomware.html
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Brian]

On Sat 20 May 2017 at 17:06:56 +0100, Michael Fothergill wrote:

> On 20 May 2017 at 15:59, Brad Rogers  wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:20:15 +0100
> > Michael Fothergill  wrote:
> >
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > >with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
> > >all this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??
> >
> > People complain about all sorts of things.  Changing something.  Not
> > changing something.  Sometimes, it's even the same people.
> >
> 
> ​Now I see why the developers have their own mailing list...

A misconception. They don't.

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Michael Fothergill]

On 20 May 2017 at 14:43, Cat  wrote:

> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 02:20:15PM +0100, Michael Fothergill wrote:
> > If this is true and it is a doddle to convert an ordinary debian install
> > with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
> all
> > this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??
>
> Fanaticism. For some it is not enough that it not be process 1. There can
> not
> be a single solitary trace of it on the system. Anywhere. At all.
>
> Purity above all.
>

​I think they should get to know some people who contracted a Clostridium
difficile infection and had a stool transplant​.

See here:

​https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_microbiota_transplant​


​I guess they see system "as a System difficile" infection, but the
developers have created their version of the stool transplant that works
just fine.

Problem solved.

MF​

>
> --
>   "A search of his car uncovered pornography, a homemade sex aid, women's
>   stockings and a Jack Russell terrier."
> - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wacky/indeed/story-
> e6frev20-118083480
>

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Michael Fothergill]

On 20 May 2017 at 15:59, Brad Rogers  wrote:

> On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:20:15 +0100
> Michael Fothergill  wrote:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> >with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
> >all this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??
>
> People complain about all sorts of things.  Changing something.  Not
> changing something.  Sometimes, it's even the same people.
>

​Now I see why the developers have their own mailing list...

MF​


>
> --
>  Regards  _
>  / )   "The blindingly obvious is
> / _)radnever immediately apparent"
> Why do they try to hide our past pulling down houses and build car parks
> Bricks & Mortar - The Jam
>

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Brad Rogers]

On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:20:15 +0100
Michael Fothergill  wrote:

Hello Michael,

>with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
>all this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??

People complain about all sorts of things.  Changing something.  Not
changing something.  Sometimes, it's even the same people.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
Why do they try to hide our past pulling down houses and build car parks
Bricks & Mortar - The Jam


pgp9hxjG44QBx.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Michael Fothergill]

On 20 May 2017 at 14:43, Cat  wrote:

> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 02:20:15PM +0100, Michael Fothergill wrote:
> > If this is true and it is a doddle to convert an ordinary debian install
> > with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
> all
> > this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??
>
> Fanaticism. For some it is not enough that it not be process 1. There can
> not
> be a single solitary trace of it on the system. Anywhere. At all.
>
> Purity above all.
>

​So, when I read some emails that sounded like there was a problem
upgrading to a newer version of debian etc on a large number of networked
machines connected to a server ​and I then began to think about how you
would switch to running e.g. Gentoo or some other Linux distro and even
tried posting something in an effort to be helpful, that was all pointless
and I was being subtly trolled

In fact what was really required was some psychotherapy instead.

Oh well

MF






>
> --
>   "A search of his car uncovered pornography, a homemade sex aid, women's
>   stockings and a Jack Russell terrier."
> - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wacky/indeed/story-
> e6frev20-118083480
>

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Cat]

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 02:20:15PM +0100, Michael Fothergill wrote:
> If this is true and it is a doddle to convert an ordinary debian install
> with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there all
> this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??

Fanaticism. For some it is not enough that it not be process 1. There can not
be a single solitary trace of it on the system. Anywhere. At all.

Purity above all.

-- 
  "A search of his car uncovered pornography, a homemade sex aid, women's 
  stockings and a Jack Russell terrier."
- 
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wacky/indeed/story-e6frev20-118083480

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Dominik George]

Hi,

>​If this is true and it is a doddle to convert an ordinary debian
>install
>with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there
>all
>this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??

Because DDs are listening, but users aren't :D.

-nik

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Michael Fothergill]

On 18 May 2017 at 18:03, Dominik George  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >A while ago, I initiated the "If Linux Is About Choice ..." thread
> >about why there is no choice of inits during an initial install.
> >
> >Since that time, I've tested several systemd-less distros[1] as well as
> >Stretch as replacements for my aging Wheezy system.  With Stretch my
> >plan was to see if I could replace systemd as the init without removing
> >it just leaving its components (some or all as necessary) to meet
> >dependencies without it breaking the system  That way there would be no
> >need for third party repos or jumping through hoops to keep a
> >systemd-less working. I figured it would be a somewhat difficult, time
> >consuming process. However, I made a discovery during these tests: The
> >Debian developers had already done it for me.  They made switching from
> >systemd as the init to sysvinit or runit easy just by issuing a couple
> >commands.
>
> Thanks for sharing your experiences!
>
> Don't get me wrong, but the interesting part is that this has already been
> the exact case long before your thread, and it is what you were told
> several times throughout the discussion ;).
>
> Long story short, not so many reasons for all the excitement :).
>

​If this is true and it is a doddle to convert an ordinary debian install
with systemd running on it to the old sysvinit format then why is there all
this sturm und drang and spam on this subject...??

MF​



>
> -nik
>
>

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Jonathan Dowland]

Thank you for sharing your experiences!

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Michael Fothergill]

On 18 May 2017 at 17:48, Patrick Bartek  wrote:

>
> A while ago, I initiated the "If Linux Is About Choice ..." thread
> about why there is no choice of inits during an initial install.
>
> Since that time, I've tested several systemd-less distros[1] as well as
> Stretch as replacements for my aging Wheezy system.  With Stretch my
> plan was to see if I could replace systemd as the init without removing
> it just leaving its components (some or all as necessary) to meet
> dependencies without it breaking the system  That way there would be no
> need for third party repos or jumping through hoops to keep a
> systemd-less working. I figured it would be a somewhat difficult, time
> consuming process. However, I made a discovery during these tests: The
> Debian developers had already done it for me.  They made switching from
> systemd as the init to sysvinit or runit easy just by issuing a couple
> commands. Here's what you do.
>
> First, install Stretch as you normally would, systemd, et al.  I chose
> LXDE for the GUI as it has no direct systemd dependencies, and it uses
> Openbox as the window manager which I normally use in lieu of a desktop
> environment anyway.  This was quicker and easier testing-wise than
> starting with a terminal-based system as I normally would, and building
> up from there.
>
> To switch to sysvinit, as root:
>
>   apt-get install sysvinit-core
>
> and reboot.  Done!  systemd components are still on the hard drive,
> except systemd-sysv has been removed.  There is also no systemd
> supervision either as far as I can tell.
>
> To switch to runit-init is an easy 2-step process.  Do a standard
> install as before.[2]  Then add runit supervision first before
> installing runit-init. As root:
>
>   apt-get install runit-systemd
>
> reboot, then
>
>   apt-get install runit-init
>
> Reboot. Done!  The latter command removes systemd-sysv during the
> install.
>
> These new init set ups survive apt-get upgrade or dist-upgrade even if
> systemd components are upgraded.  Systemd as init does not get
> reactivated.  Tested and verified.  I can find no systemd pinning
> either.
>
> I now have two Stretch systems running in VirtualBox.  One a full LXDE
> desktop using runit for both the init and supervision, and the other
> with just Openbox and lxpanel as the GUI, and sysvinit and runit for
> supervison. No problems at all with either.
>
>
> B
>
> ​Well, I'll be hornswaggled.  Hallelujah!

MF  ​




> [1] AntiX, MX Linux, SalixOS and Void Linux.
>
> [2] With either above options, you can't go from an init other than
> systemd to another init.  apt-get install  fails due to
> systemd-sysv being missing.
>
>

Re: Debian Developers Have Been Listening!

[Dominik George]

Hi,

>A while ago, I initiated the "If Linux Is About Choice ..." thread
>about why there is no choice of inits during an initial install.
>
>Since that time, I've tested several systemd-less distros[1] as well as
>Stretch as replacements for my aging Wheezy system.  With Stretch my
>plan was to see if I could replace systemd as the init without removing
>it just leaving its components (some or all as necessary) to meet
>dependencies without it breaking the system  That way there would be no
>need for third party repos or jumping through hoops to keep a
>systemd-less working. I figured it would be a somewhat difficult, time
>consuming process. However, I made a discovery during these tests: The
>Debian developers had already done it for me.  They made switching from
>systemd as the init to sysvinit or runit easy just by issuing a couple
>commands.

Thanks for sharing your experiences!

Don't get me wrong, but the interesting part is that this has already been the 
exact case long before your thread, and it is what you were told several times 
throughout the discussion ;).

Long story short, not so many reasons for all the excitement :).

-nik