Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 06:00:51PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 05:19:22PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>>      However there is a method to their madness and
>>>> LFSers should be able to pick it up relatively quickly.
>>>    Don't get me started on what that "method" might be ;-)
>> That method is different files, different formats, and different
>> locations.  The principles are generally the same as they must be.
>> Generally though, they don't use executable scripts.

>   Yeah, change for the sake of it (aka giving everything to the
> "design" kiddies who wrecked gnome), or "why write a few lines of
> interpreted shell, when you could do something harder or buggier".

I don't think you understand their problem.  LFS doesn't need systemd 
because it is efficient.  If you ever look at the scripts from RH, 
you'll find that they are quite complex.   That's because they try to 
cover every complex variation of every possible kernel module or program 
that runs at the system level.  That takes a couple of minutes.  OTOH, 
LFS takes about 10 seconds.  A complex startup, maybe 15.

Actually, after working with systemd for a while, I think it is sorta 
elegant in it's own complex way.  If they had just kept things separate 
instead of one huge conglomeration, then I think it would have had a lot 
better general acceptance.

   -- Bruce

Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to