[lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd

Thomas Trepl thomas at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Mar 28 00:18:52 PDT 2014


Am Dienstag, 25. März 2014, 11:22:38 schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
> 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.
> 
>    -- Bruce

Hi,
I personally would dislike that approach to merge this two systems together. 
Having that all installed, it may confuse more than it helps. While I still 
deeply dislike systemd (I cannot argue technically, its more emotional), it is 
quite right to have the systemd-branch as systemd really may become part of 
the future and we shouldn't close the eyes for that. 
But sysv is still valid, clear in its structures (and it does not take ages to 
boot). In my eyes ideal for the educational background LFS has. A boot issue 
can (mostly) easily tracked down to the bootscript which that can be tweaked 
in whatever way for whatever reason. So keeping the "original" alive is also 
valid.
I'd vote for not merging the two different init systems. I think systemd is 
confusing enough so I'd think that mixing it with the "classic" would add 
unnessessary complexity. The charme of a LFS system is to be crystal clear. 
That would be somehow lost.
Maybe a if-else in the book would not harm too much if it is only one or two. 
I think something like "if you want to install systemd as boot system goto 
chap X else continue" is understandable for everyone when a section is added 
which describes the differences between sysv and systemd. Thats required to 
give the user background to make her decision. So having both in a clear way 
in one book may work, but I'd never install both on disk.

Btw,  +1  to add those packages like attr, acl and such to the core. The only 
one still missing is cpio. With this one, everything would be available to 
setup a Linux system using a initramfs for booting.

Just my 2ct,

-- 
Thomas



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list