Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:33:57 +0100 From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer) To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev) . . Yes, I agree about addressing it: but the two streams in b/lfs should (( s/agree/kindof agree broadly/ )) . . -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Le 25/04/2014 23:12, Bruce Dubbs a écrit : Before I do that, I want to clean up what we have. Currently there are scripts for several packages that are no longer mentioned in the book: gdm heimdal lprng qpopper service-ipx service-pppoe swat [...] Before I start, are there any comments or issues that I should look at? There has been a discussion on the list a few months ago about leaving service-ipx and service-pppoe as a reference for those users who wanted to use ppp/pppoe, even if the package pages were not maintained in the book. See the thread starting at: http://www.mail-archive.com/blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg16044.html Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Bruce Dubbs wrote: snip - read the thread! I'm interested if you have any personal hands on experience with systemd? Other than the admittedly different configuration files and learning curve, what's your objection? Mine is lack of flexibility as to what runs. However that's more of a theoretical issue as I've not really had a practical problem that wasn't solved fairly easily with a little research. -- Bruce My experience with it (Arch) is that it works. Truely, it just works. BUT, the machines run slower, and the list of running processes is too big to manage - but hey, that's the service scheduler's (systemd's) job. I think it's a pity that the industry is moving to 'Red Hat is always right', just as in the 80's we saw 'Microsoft is always right' (Windows for Workgroups and even NT, were quite good). So my objections are a mix of (1) I'll decide what proportion of my computer power is used for what, and (2) we don't need another Microsoft, or Apple (, or if you are my age, SCO and IBM). It needs to be in LFS and BLFS, but then the books also need to support those who don't want it, and want a simpler architecture. If you don't then there is a danger of another fork (says he who withdrew his labor 7 years ago) Richard. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Em 25-04-2014 18:12, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: gdm Before I start, are there any comments or issues that I should look at? Probably as soon as we have systemd support, hopefully some devs will help to get back to the book the full gnome, either editing the book or sending patches. Thus, I don't know if gdm will need to be an entry in bootscripts, but probably will have to be in systemd units. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:12:31 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev) I've been looking at the blfs bootscripts in preparation of adding support of systemd type of services. I don NOT intend to remove the current scripts, but will do something like install-sshd: install-sysv-sshd install-sysd-sshd . . That leaves 51 entries. We may also want to remove dbus as it is now installed as a part of lfs-dev. . . Before I start, are there any comments or issues that I should look at? Well it would be a pity if the 'blurring' between sysd/non-sysd that has happened in lfs, crept in to blfs too. Yes, I know you're talking about 'just' bootscripts ... for now, at least; but we'll see how it goes - it seems to be a recurring factor around sysd that it ever-pervades/interferes. A good test would be, can one still auto-calc a dep-tree from the blfs xml src, and switch on/off sysd and its dep-tree with a single yes/no parameter, and auto-build the result. It's long been possible to do that kind of thing with the xml src - and improving much in recent years re cleanness of the deps-specs: would be ... 'strange' ... to jettison that (on the b/lfs-project side, at least). Expecting a 'bullish' attitude in response to such feedback, like for lfs: but I think in this respect at least that we'd have different interpretations of what 'bullshi' might mean ... ;) . Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? rgds, akh -- Bruce -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
akhiezer wrote: Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? No, it was a combination of things. There were comments in the lists as well as irc that people wanted systemd. My judgement is that there are about an equal number of people on both sides of the issue. Additionally, most of the mainstream distros have gone to systemd. If we want to maintain one of our fundamental goals of being an instructional resource, we really need to address this. I personally don't like the amount of systemd components mutual interconnections. IMO, that's not really necessary from a design standpoint. However, I don't have any input into that. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:08:10 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev) akhiezer wrote: Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? No, it was a combination of things. There were comments in the lists as well as irc that people wanted systemd. My judgement is that there are about an equal number of people on both sides of the issue. Additionally, most of the mainstream distros have gone to systemd. If we want to maintain one of our fundamental goals of being an instructional resource, we really need to address this. Yes, I agree about addressing it: but the two streams in b/lfs should still be separable fairly readily; and that has been getting lessened, and unnecessarily; and it raises doubts about why. I personally don't like the amount of systemd components mutual interconnections. IMO, that's not really necessary from a design standpoint. However, I don't have any input into that. As noted before and elsewhere ( increasingly), as the 'community' gets its hands on sysd, it'll (the former) knock it into (at _least_ better) shape. akh -- Bruce -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev)
akhiezer wrote: Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:08:10 -0500 From: Bruce Dubbs bruce.du...@gmail.com To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] blfs bootscripts (-dev) akhiezer wrote: Btw, what was it decided you to 'get more involved' on the sysd side - e.g. demand for teaching courses on the stuff? No, it was a combination of things. There were comments in the lists as well as irc that people wanted systemd. My judgement is that there are about an equal number of people on both sides of the issue. Additionally, most of the mainstream distros have gone to systemd. If we want to maintain one of our fundamental goals of being an instructional resource, we really need to address this. Yes, I agree about addressing it: but the two streams in b/lfs should still be separable fairly readily; and that has been getting lessened, and unnecessarily; and it raises doubts about why. There is a lot more in common than not. Adding a few systemd prerequisites shouldn't be a problem. About the only differences are systemd/eudev. Additionally systemd doesn't need syslog, but those are about the only package differences. I admit that d-bus isn't needed on most servers, but it is for most desktops. The big differences are in Chapter 7. Scripts and configuration files are completely different. However that shouldn't be an issue for someone to do one or the other. I personally don't like the amount of systemd components mutual interconnections. IMO, that's not really necessary from a design standpoint. However, I don't have any input into that. As noted before and elsewhere ( increasingly), as the 'community' gets its hands on sysd, it'll (the former) knock it into (at _least_ better) shape. I'm interested if you have any personal hands on experience with systemd? Other than the admittedly different configuration files and learning curve, what's your objection? Mine is lack of flexibility as to what runs. However that's more of a theoretical issue as I've not really had a practical problem that wasn't solved fairly easily with a little research. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
