On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El mié, 01-05-2013 a las 12:04 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió: > [...] >> - other ~490 systemd units are missing at this time and writing them >> could also be a great GSoC project (don't look at me, I'm busy >> enough). > [...] > > Can't them be stolen from other distros running systemd?
Sure, Arch and Fedora repositories are a good source. > > [...] >> The only remaining problem is about eselect-sysvinit, for this reason, >> I am probably going to create a new separate pkg called >> _sysvinit-next_, that contains all the fun stuff many developers were >> not allowed to commit (besides my needs, there is also the need of >> splitting sysvinit due to the issues reported in [4]). I am sure that >> a masked alternative sysvinit ebuild won't hurt anybody and will make >> Gentoo a bit more fun to use. >> > > I am unable to find exact advantage of changing init system without > rebooting :/, what is the advantage of booting with an init.d and > shutting down with a different one? No, you don't boot with A and shutdown with B. B is loaded by the kernel at the next boot. Switching init system is the only way to roll out a migration path, among other things I already wrote about on the eselect-sysvinit bug. > >> The final outcome will hopefully be: >> - easier to migrate from/to systemd, at runtime, with NO recompilation >> at all (just enable USE=systemd and switch the device manager from >> *udev to systemd -- unless somebody wants to drop the udev part from >> systemd, if at all possible) > > Are udev and systemd-udev-part really equivalent? I mean, since they are > maintained by different people downstream, I am not sure if there would > be differences in how udev from udev ebuild and udev from systemd ebuild > will behave. This needs investigation. > > Best regards and thanks for your work! > > -- Fabio Erculiani
