Re: [yocto] is there a rationale for YP using sysvinit as default init manager?
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 22:18, Richard Purdie < richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > We got so far and after looking at the position we ended up I decided > it was easier to switch poky-altcfg rather than change poky and/or OE > defaults. I resolved that bug as "complete" as we now had testing of > systemd on a near enough equal footing to sysvinit which was the > concern people had raised. There are problems in oe-selftest and some > other corner cases but nothing people seem to be running into day-to- > day. > It is also quite amazing that the project, by design, has entirely sidestepped the divisive init system wars that have been gripping the mainstream linux distros for years (and still are). I'd say it hardly matters what the default is, if the other options are well supported. Alex -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] is there a rationale for YP using sysvinit as default init manager?
On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 10:08 +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Friday, 22 November 2019 9:40:35 AM NZDT Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 14:02 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > don't get me wrong, i have no problem with that, but a > > > colleague > > > asked me what the reason was for using sysvinit as the *default*. > > > i > > > hemmed and hawed and suggested it was for simplicity and > > > reliability, > > > and that a lot of embedded systems didn't need the flashy > > > features of > > > systemd, and so on. > > > > > > is there any short answer to give to that question? > > > > The project existed before systemd and we haven't changed the > > default. > > > > We can change the default, it just means someone going through and > > fixing the build failures it generates and rewriting all the test > > metadata to invert poky and poky-altcfg. Personally I've got other > > things I'd prefer to do... > > Kai was working on changing this in the last cycle but AFAICT not all > issues were able to be resolved in time. Kai, do you have a status > update? We got so far and after looking at the position we ended up I decided it was easier to switch poky-altcfg rather than change poky and/or OE defaults. I resolved that bug as "complete" as we now had testing of systemd on a near enough equal footing to sysvinit which was the concern people had raised. There are problems in oe-selftest and some other corner cases but nothing people seem to be running into day-to- day. There has been representation at OE meetings, in surveys and from YP members for us not to switch the default FWIW. Cheers, Richard -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] is there a rationale for YP using sysvinit as default init manager?
On Friday, 22 November 2019 9:40:35 AM NZDT Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 14:02 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > don't get me wrong, i have no problem with that, but a colleague > > asked me what the reason was for using sysvinit as the *default*. i > > hemmed and hawed and suggested it was for simplicity and reliability, > > and that a lot of embedded systems didn't need the flashy features of > > systemd, and so on. > > > > is there any short answer to give to that question? > > The project existed before systemd and we haven't changed the default. > > We can change the default, it just means someone going through and > fixing the build failures it generates and rewriting all the test > metadata to invert poky and poky-altcfg. Personally I've got other > things I'd prefer to do... Kai was working on changing this in the last cycle but AFAICT not all issues were able to be resolved in time. Kai, do you have a status update? Thanks Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel System Software Products -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] is there a rationale for YP using sysvinit as default init manager?
On Thu, 2019-11-21 at 14:02 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > don't get me wrong, i have no problem with that, but a colleague > asked me what the reason was for using sysvinit as the *default*. i > hemmed and hawed and suggested it was for simplicity and reliability, > and that a lot of embedded systems didn't need the flashy features of > systemd, and so on. > > is there any short answer to give to that question? The project existed before systemd and we haven't changed the default. We can change the default, it just means someone going through and fixing the build failures it generates and rewriting all the test metadata to invert poky and poky-altcfg. Personally I've got other things I'd prefer to do... Cheers, Richard -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
