[blfs-dev] A proposal
krejzi at email.com
Mon May 13 05:17:42 PDT 2013
On 05/12/2013 09:35 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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 The GNOME/GTK+ Project packages are becoming outdated and newer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
A systemd blfs branch would be fine since we already have systemd lfs
branch. There is no need to reference it anywhere on the main site -
just an initial announcement should be fine.
As for the GNOME, I think that 3.8 could be made to work without systemd
(minus some functionality - not sure which one) but as I said, I am
systemd user and I am not going to put the effort into making packages
that depend on systemd work without it.
I can still maintain both of BLFS branches like Matt does for LFS and
LFS Systemd (merging changes that don't conflict with other ones), but
some help is always welcome - there are packages out of date that I
don't or won't maintain (not using them or such).
More information about the blfs-dev