I like to have 1 base and ask for init system. bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> writes:
> i dont know how difficult this idea may be, but it seems like the > logical user-friendly thing to do would be to have a separate package > for each init system, including a new one with only systemd - each of > which as a provider of 'your-init-freedom'; and base would depend on any > one of those providers > > 'init-systemd' provides('your-init-freedom') > depends('systemd-sysvcompat') > conflicts('init-openrc' 'init-runit' 'init-shepherd') > 'init-openrc' provides('your-init-freedom') > depends(whatever 'base-openrc' depends now) > conflicts('init-systemd' 'init-runit' 'init-shepherd') > 'init-runit' provides('your-init-freedom') > depends('runit') > conflicts('init-systemd' 'init-openrc' 'init-shepherd') > 'init-shepherd' provides('your-init-freedom') > depends('shepherd') > conflicts('init-systemd' 'init-openrc' 'init-runit') > > as it is now, 'base' depends on 'systemd' and any other init package > would need to remove 'systemd' so instead there is base-openrc that > removes 'base' - but that seems very tacky to be removing 'base' or > anything from it for any reason - it is most sensible to have only one > 'base' package that allows for optional components > > # pacstrap /mnt 'base' > There are 4 providers of 'your-init-freedom'. Please select one: > 1) 'init-systemd' > 2) 'init-openrc' > 3) 'init-runit > 4) 'init-shepherd') > > i dont know if a new repo is really need for this but i dont know why > there is a separate repo for kernels either - maybe this is suggesting a > similar schema > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev@lists.parabola.nu > https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.parabola.nu https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev