[blfs-dev] A proposal

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun May 12 12:35:59 PDT 2013

Armin K. wrote:

> The GNOME/GTK+ Project packages are becoming outdated and newer
> package that are adjusted for them seem to be more or less "failing"
> with older ones (See several NetworkManager threads on blfs-support). On
> the other side, I use Systemd and my system isn't anymore compatible
> with any of the desktops (I can only check if they work with Systemd not
> with ConsoleKit).
> I want to propose a systemd branch for BLFS, where we (for now, I) can
> upgrade all packages that now depend on Systemd and make existing ones
> work with it, too.

I'd like to make an alternative proposal.  How about removing those 
packages from BLFS (e.g. Gnome) that need systemd and putting them into 
a separate document that references the main BLFS packages as needed. 
There are many packages in BLFS that do not need or use systemd, but can 
be used in a systemd environment.  Doing the work of maintaining 
packages in two documents seems counterproductive to me.  Links between 
separate packages are not unreasonable.  There are several links in LFS 
to BLFS.

The reason I do not want to use systemd in LFS is because it makes the 
boot process opaque.  I think presenting what happens during boot is an 
important educational goal of LFS.  Being able to read short bash 
scripts and using separate programs like syslogd accomplishes that goal 
much more simply and visibly than systemd.  There are also many parts of 
systemd that are simply not required in a linux system, but are there to 
support only large multi-user systems (e.g. cgroups).  A basic system 
just does not need resource limiting, prioritization, accounting, and 
controlling of groups.

If a course was given that explained the Linux system using LFS, a 
second course explaining systemd and other advanced concepts such as 
initrd, raid, lvm, security, etc would build on the base concepts.

> If possible, I'd like to host systemd branch on LFS servers - just on
> another repository (like done for LFS).

Is that needed?  We can do that, but a branch seems easier to me.  The 
thing that would be needed is to publicize the branch on the website. 
We really haven't done that for the systemd version of LFS either.

BTW, the reason I haven't been doing more for BLFS is because you have 
been doing such a good job.  If you want me to take more on, I can do that.

   -- Bruce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list