Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 23 February 2016 at 09:43, Eric Vidal wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm the creator of Obarun > I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all package > builded without systemd support. It's good to see people contributing to the Arch community with

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:43:41 +0400 Eric Vidal wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm the creator of Obarun > I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all > package builded without systemd support. All this package have the > name xxx-systemd to avoid trouble

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 23.02.2016 08:43, Eric Vidal wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm the creator of Obarun > I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all package > builded without systemd support. All this package have the name xxx-systemd > to avoid trouble with original package. Package

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 23 February 2016 at 08:32, Frank Schaffhaeuser wrote: > This topic again? Seriously? The last 'discussion' from Feb.8th thankfully > just died down > and apart from spamming subscriber's inboxes had no useful effect... > Please, not again Hang on, I absolutely agree

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:43:41 + Eric Vidale...@obarun.org wrote Hello everyone, I'm the creator of Obarun I use runit for PID1 and managing service. Repo is available for all package builded without systemd support. All this package have the name xxx-systemd to avoid trouble

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

It seems we've come to an understanding in this thread, which is great. But I would recommend further OpenRC development be discussed elsewhere (perhaps aur-general or the PKGBUILD requests subforum?). Thanks, Max

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 15-02-16 16:54, João Miguel wrote: A 2016-02-14T23:13:44 +0100, LoneVVolf escreveu: On 14-02-16 17:17, João Miguel wrote: Then I shall contact Artoo and add the packages back to the AUR as Nous suggested. Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted by Manjaro is less trusted than

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

A 2016-02-14T23:13:44 +0100, LoneVVolf escreveu: > On 14-02-16 17:17, João Miguel wrote: > >Then I shall contact Artoo and add the packages back to the AUR as Nous > >suggested. Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted by > >Manjaro is less trusted than the AUR. Nevertheless, I do

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> > Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted by > > Manjaro is less trusted than the AUR. > They are completely different. An unofficial repository of non-AUR packages > is for installing binary packages that have no affiliation with Arch Linux. > I think it's pretty obvious why that

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 14-02-16 17:17, João Miguel wrote: Then I shall contact Artoo and add the packages back to the AUR as Nous suggested. Though I don't see how a repository officially trusted by Manjaro is less trusted than the AUR. Nevertheless, I do like the AUR, and packages being there might help. Have a

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> > There are 4 mirrors for an unnoficial user repository with packages that > > are officially used in Manjaro. > > > 3. Work on 1 and 2 until you feel like you have a clearly superior > method > > The method already existed, I just wanted to make it visible. > I think you misunderstood. I was

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Sorry if I was too harsh. But the methods are for fundamentally different purposes, apg's intends to remain compatible with systemd and is backed up by the AUR, while artoo's intends to replace systemd and has its own repositories elsewhere. AFAIK, artoo tried to convince apg to join forces, with

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> > I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release > > distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or > > sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like > > KDE4 and Gnome3 to work without systemd (I don't mention KDE5

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 02/13/2016 04:17 PM, João Miguel wrote: >>> I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release >>> distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or >>> sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like >>> KDE4 and Gnome3 to

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> (If your goal is to *learn*, then yes $DEITY yes, do that, but for > practical things... you need some more concrete and tangible goals to > challenge the decision of systemd-only for Arch Linux.) The decision was to have systemd as a default, not to forbid any other init system to be mentioned.

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 02/13/2016 05:35 PM, João Miguel wrote: >> (If your goal is to *learn*, then yes $DEITY yes, do that, but for >> practical things... you need some more concrete and tangible goals to >> challenge the decision of systemd-only for Arch Linux.) > The decision was to have systemd as a default, not

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> If you want to make OpenRC easier to use on Arch, here's how: > 1. Get more involved in the AUR to develop more/better OpenRC-specific > packages There are 4 mirrors for an unnoficial user repository with packages that are officially used in Manjaro. > 2. Draft a new OpenRC wiki article on your

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 2016-02-13 17:35, João Miguel wrote: > The decision was to have systemd as a default, not to forbid any other > init system to be mentioned. I don't agree with the OP of this thread > when he said there should be an official version of Arch with OpenRC, > that's too much work. > > I mean this:

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Just throwing this out there: Given nosh's support for importing systemd units, that one might be another viable option.

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> There are 4 mirrors for an unnoficial user repository with packages that > are officially used in Manjaro. > > 3. Work on 1 and 2 until you feel like you have a clearly superior method > The method already existed, I just wanted to make it visible. I think you misunderstood. I was not

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 11-02-16 17:12, João Miguel wrote: now there are no AUR packages for OpenRC. You are wrong, please be more specific. This is current situation: - run AL without using systemd as PID1 / init system : Aur and AL wiki have everything you need for that. You will still have systemd installed

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> >now there are no AUR packages for OpenRC. > You are wrong, please be more specific. Sorry, I mean Artoo's way is no longer available in the AUR. openrc-core and all init srcipts he posted are gone (because of the bad community pressure, which was my point). > This is current situation: > > -

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> > It's ok now not because of the wiki and the AUR, but thanks to the > existence of systemd-free.org. It had to be created because of the > above, which would'nt have happened with a better community. So far I've not seen anyone in this thread, or in the replies by Poettering referenced by

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> > It's ok now not because of the wiki and the AUR, but thanks to the > > existence of systemd-free.org. It had to be created because of the > > above, which would'nt have happened with a better community. > > So far I've not seen anyone in this thread, or in the replies by Poettering >

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

I had asked Nous and Artoo whether it was worth placing those packages back in the AUR, and they said it wasn't, so I gave up. But maybe systemd-free.org can be referred instead of the AUR. About "the right way", I'm not sure it's true, for example, the Wiki lists at least 3 ways to use an nvidia

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> Someone already talked about putting it back in the forums. They were > turned down because of those points («no reason for 2 methods», etc.). > This among other things (which are evident in any discussion in Arch > about OpenRC) signals a bad community. When it comes to Linux there are often

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> > > > when the (in MHO excellent) choice to package systemd by default has > > already been made and it works perfectly well? > I never said systemd shouldn't be packaged by default! Apologies, poor wording on my part. That wasn't meant to imply you ever did. I understood you wanted an

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like KDE4 and Gnome3 to work without systemd (I don't mention KDE5 since nobody has

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 02/12/2016 11:50 PM, Toyam Cox wrote: > I feel it pertinent to point out that a different rolling-release > distrobution ( http://www.voidlinux.eu/ ) does not use systemd, openrc, or > sysvinit. Void Linux uses runit exclusively, and thus patches projects like > KDE4 and Gnome3 to work without

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 4:12:24 PM CST João Miguel wrote: > > I agree with you, the devs have more work to do, etc., but the cause of > these never-ending discussions must be pointed out: community attitude. > Bear with me for a moment: > > OpenRC was working fine in Arch. Artoo's way was

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> It is tough enough for TUs to voluntarily keep the packages in the repos as > close to current upstream as they do already, and adding an unnecessary > layer of additional support for a small percentage of the user base who > wish to have a second init system available, because they think it is

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 02/10/2016 12:53 PM, Jack L. Frost wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote: >> What does this mean? It means that I prefer a linux distribution that >> supports the newest changes in the linux development. Systemd is one of >> thesee changes. Systemd

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

> Other way around: systemd may at some future point depend on a > Linux-only IPC protocol. (One assumes that this would be indirectly via > a DBUS-like client library, but whatever...) My brain went completely derp there, so yeah, disregard that statement. signature.asc Description: PGP

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:44:34PM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > "change is not progress" has no bearing on whether systemd is a net > positive or not. The person you responded to explicitly said -- in the > very part you quoted, no less! -- "systemd improves a lot of stuff", so > clearly

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Ivan wrote: > Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing > on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that > use Arch Linux. > Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor > to disapprove

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 02/08/2016 07:27 AM, Yaro Kasear wrote: > I still don't get what makes OpenRC so great. Doesn't it still depend > entirely on SysV Init? By default it uses sysvinit as PID1. That's all that it does. If it makes you unhappy you can easily use s6 or runit as PID1 ... or write your own. > That

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:13:49AM +0100, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Change is not Progress. > > Are you, by chance, confusing sysvinit with debian's sysv-rc or > something similar? A lot of people make two huge mistakes in such debates: 1) sysvinit != Debian's initscripts. 2) sysvinit vs systemd

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote: > Hello everone, > First of all I want to remind you that systemd is no longer an init system. > Systemd has become to be much more than just starting/stopping some daemons. > You must see systemd with every part. You cannot just

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016, Guus Snijders wrote: > Op 8 feb. 2016 01:59 schreef "Ivan" : > > > > Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing > > on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that > > use Arch Linux. > > Note: I am not here to

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Hi Ivan, On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Ivan wrote: >> That said, how about a archbang-like approach? > Definitely not a bad idea, but I would need a team that would help me > maintain it. All Arch Linux packages are compiled with > systemd support, so lots of recompiling and

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 A note about using shell scripts in systemd: Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d compatibility that is disabled in arch. Although you have to write unit files, you can start scripts, so you do not really lose flexibility.

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 The isolation is not fully cgroup based, also cgroups require/prefer a single manager, this is going to be enforced in kernel someday, so it is better for init to do it as it is a parent of everything. PrivateTmp uses namespaces, so it is a real

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On 9 February 2016 at 17:34, Guus Snijders wrote: > Op 9 feb. 2016 17:27 schreef "Michał Zegan" : >> > >> A note about using shell scripts in systemd: >> Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d >> compatibility that is disabled

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Op 9 feb. 2016 17:27 schreef "Michał Zegan" : > > A note about using shell scripts in systemd: > Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d > compatibility that is disabled in arch. Although you have to write > unit files, you can start scripts, so you

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Op 9 feb. 2016 17:52 schreef "Damjan Georgievski" : > > On 9 February 2016 at 17:34, Guus Snijders wrote: > > Op 9 feb. 2016 17:27 schreef "Michał Zegan" : > >> > > > >> Although you have to write > >> unit files, you can start

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Hello everone, First of all I want to remind you that systemd is no longer an init system. Systemd has become to be much more than just starting/stopping some daemons. You must see systemd with every part. You cannot just strip systemd from every package, ignore the other parts of systemd and run

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:26:57 +0100, Michał Zegan wrote: >A note about using shell scripts in systemd: >Who said you can't? and I don't talk about systemd's init.d >compatibility that is disabled in arch. Although you have to write >unit files, you can start scripts, so you do not really lose

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Leonid Isaev wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 06:02:34AM +0100, Ivan wrote: > > Hypothetically, if Arch Linux was to adopt an alternative init, it's a > > process that does not happen overnight. Through time, solutions will > > surface. I'm not a magic lamp genie that has all

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, 08 Feb 2016, Yaro Kasear wrote: > I still don't get what makes OpenRC so great. Doesn't it still depend > entirely on SysV Init? That ALONE makes me want to keep it off my system. > If it makes us fall back on an init system that is frankly backward and was > badly in need of replacement

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Op 8 feb. 2016 01:59 schreef "Ivan" : > > Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing > on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that > use Arch Linux. > Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor > to disapprove of

[arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that use Arch Linux. Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor to disapprove of current Arch choices. So, to get to the point... I would like to

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

No. Systemd is here to stay. Maintaining another's init would be a waste of time and too much work. Plus, why on earth would people want to waste time maintaining another init system when the one we have works? Is there anything lacking in systemd that is available in openrc? On Feb 7, 2016 18:11,

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:37:57 + mick wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700 > Devon Smith wrote: > > > Is there anything lacking in systemd > A clear, logical and consistant naming convention for the services, units, > etc used by systemd, on a

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Leonid Isaev wrote: > That's why I still use Debian 5 stable in a container as a print server... > Cups > 2.0+ is a real piece of crap. And yes, these org.xxx.xxx names _are_ stupid > especially for filenames. But after using modern

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700 Devon Smith wrote: > Is there anything lacking in systemd A clear, logical and consistant naming convention for the services, units, etc used by systemd, on a number of occasions I have spent an hour or more looking for the script that

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:28:36AM +, mick wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 20:51:50 -0600 > Doug Newgard wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:37:57 + > > mick wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700 > > > Devon Smith

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Patrick Burroughs (Celti) wrote: > The big question you have to answer, the one you need to start with, is: > > Why is it in the Arch dev's interests to maintain two init systems and > that much more area for incompatibility, that many more packages and > bugs to wrangle?

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 01:58:19 +0100 Ivan wrote: > Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing > on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that > use Arch Linux. > Note: I am not here to hate on the current status, nor > to disapprove

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

Hi, On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:58:19AM +0100, Ivan wrote: > 1. Udev... You don't need udev in most cases. For instance, on a workstation, you can simply create device nodes by hand. > 2. Packaging... Not an issue really. > 2.1. Repositories... core, extra, community and multilib would not

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 20:51:50 -0600 Doug Newgard wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:37:57 + > mick wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 18:30:15 -0700 > > Devon Smith wrote: > > > > > Is there anything lacking in systemd > > A

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 06:02:34AM +0100, Ivan wrote: > Hypothetically, if Arch Linux was to adopt an alternative init, it's a > process that does not happen overnight. Through time, solutions will > surface. I'm not a magic lamp genie that has all the answers. Then you have to ask yourself,

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

I still don't get what makes OpenRC so great. Doesn't it still depend entirely on SysV Init? That ALONE makes me want to keep it off my system. If it makes us fall back on an init system that is frankly backward and was badly in need of replacement then I don't see why it should be considered an

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:58:19AM +0100, Ivan wrote: > Hello, I have a proposal for Arch Linux developers and by mailing > on this list I would also appreciate feedback from non-developers that > use Arch Linux. > ... It's not reasonable to demand Arch devs maintain several init systems. You

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Leonid Isaev wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:58:19AM +0100, Ivan wrote: > > > I realize that there are a lot more things to be discussed about this. > > And here is a can of worms. What are you going to do with logind and various > desktop integrations? What about

Re: [arch-general] Alternative init system proposal

On Sun, 07 Feb 2016, Devon Smith wrote: > No. Systemd is here to stay. Maintaining another's init would be a waste of > time and too much work. Plus, why on earth would people want to waste time > maintaining another init system when the one we have works? Is there > anything lacking in systemd