[lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 15:21:54 PDT 2014

akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:22:38 -0500
>> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com>
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
>> Subject: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
>> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
>> be put into a single LFS build.  Looking at the installed package
>> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions:
>> systemd  sysvinit eudev
>>                     udevd
>> udevadm           udevadm
>> halt     halt
>> init     init
>> poweroff poweroff
>> reboot   reboot
>> runlevel runlevel
>> shutdown shutdown
>> telinit  telinit
>> I don't know if udevd is missing from the systemd page or is really not
>> installed when doing a systemd build, but I suspect it has just been
>> omitted from the page.
>> In any case, this cursory look indicates to me that both could be
>> installed with custom names and a script written to swap the names and
>> reboot to the desired system.  I also suspect a sysV initialization
>> could use the systemd version of udev and eudev would not be necessary.
>> I have not looked at boot scripts or possibly different build options in
>> other programs, but wanted to throw out the idea for comments.
> I'd recommend any such 'lfs-combined' be done in a third branch, separate
> from lfs-systemd and lfs-main, and using merges from the latter two:
> and *not* try to do all three in a single branch.
> If instead all three approaches are (attempted to be) done directly on a
> single branch, then inter alia you're practising the kind of 'layering'
> that has been argued against (incl by yrself?) quite often - e.g. not
> having multilib, avoid too many "ifs'n'buts", &c&c, as it would obscure
> central educational goals of the book, &usw.
> Certainly I think, in this respect at least, that it'd be wise of Armin to
> not give up the separate lfs-systemd branch lightly. Also, sysd is still in
> quite a state of flux; so even more reason to keep it essentially contained
> in its own branch.
> If the three-branches approach appears to be too 'difficult' ... then
> maybe that's even more reason to be cautious about any notions of doing
> everything on a single branch.

I understand your concerns, but the development branch is for, well, 
development.  If what goes there needs to be reverted, that's not a 
problem.  We have until September (our self imposed release date) to decide.

BTW, the more I look at systemd, the more I think of busybox.  Good is 
some places, but not really good for all.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list