FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-21-2012, 09:40 PM
Pierre Schmitz
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

Am 21.07.2012 23:28, schrieb Ionut Biru:
> I pretty much hate everything you have described here.
> We started from a simple and elegant, single file configuration to over
> 9k(not to mention that i have no freaking idea which one to edit)
>
> Bring back the old rc.conf until we are switching to systemd or even
> better, kill initscripts right now and lets move to systemd.
>
> I don't like the transition, we are in the middle and it's frustrating.

Did you even bother to read what Tom wrote? You can still use your old
rc.conf. It is just recommend to use the new config files instead. This
makes using initscripts and systemd in parallel easier. And there are
not 9k config files but three.

So criticizing is all fine, but please keep it civil and based on
facts.

Greetings,

Pierre

--
Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
 
Old 07-21-2012, 09:44 PM
Ionut Biru
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

On 07/22/2012 12:40 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Am 21.07.2012 23:28, schrieb Ionut Biru:
>> I pretty much hate everything you have described here.
>> We started from a simple and elegant, single file configuration to over
>> 9k(not to mention that i have no freaking idea which one to edit)
>>
>> Bring back the old rc.conf until we are switching to systemd or even
>> better, kill initscripts right now and lets move to systemd.
>>
>> I don't like the transition, we are in the middle and it's frustrating.
>
> Did you even bother to read what Tom wrote? You can still use your old
> rc.conf. It is just recommend to use the new config files instead. This
> makes using initscripts and systemd in parallel easier. And there are
> not 9k config files but three.
>
sure i can use my old rc.conf but I'm about to install a new system and
I don't like what I see.

There are more than 3,
1) at least 1 for loading modules in some creepy location
2) hostname
3) time
4) locale
5) fonts

At least 5 files that i have to edit in order to have the same benefit
as I had with only editing 1 file.

> So criticizing is all fine, but please keep it civil and based on
> facts.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Pierre
>


--
IonuČ›
 
Old 07-21-2012, 10:01 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
> I pretty much hate everything you have described here.
> We started from a simple and elegant, single file configuration to over
> 9k

Before rejecting everything, please explain why the problems I
outlined are not real?

> (not to mention that i have no freaking idea which one to edit)

I now added a comment to the standard rc.conf with pointers to all the
files you could possibly want to edit.

> Bring back the old rc.conf until we are switching to systemd or even
> better, kill initscripts right now and lets move to systemd.
>
> I don't like the transition, we are in the middle and it's frustrating.

You can keep your old rc.conf, you can even use an old rc.conf when
you setup a new system. Everything is clearly (I hope!) documented in
the manpage. The only thing that changed was the defaults and the
recommendations.

Forcing or not everyone to use systemd does not really change
anything. At this stage both initscripts and systemd should support
exactly the same config files.

I'm happy to revert specific things based on detailed technical
feedback, but please make the effort to at least understand the issues
before shooting down everything.

-t
 
Old 07-21-2012, 10:09 PM
Ionut Biru
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

On 07/22/2012 01:01 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> I pretty much hate everything you have described here.
>> We started from a simple and elegant, single file configuration to over
>> 9k
>
> Before rejecting everything, please explain why the problems I
> outlined are not real?
>
>> (not to mention that i have no freaking idea which one to edit)
>
> I now added a comment to the standard rc.conf with pointers to all the
> files you could possibly want to edit.
>
>> Bring back the old rc.conf until we are switching to systemd or even
>> better, kill initscripts right now and lets move to systemd.
>>
>> I don't like the transition, we are in the middle and it's frustrating.
>
> You can keep your old rc.conf, you can even use an old rc.conf when
> you setup a new system. Everything is clearly (I hope!) documented in
> the manpage. The only thing that changed was the defaults and the
> recommendations.
>
> Forcing or not everyone to use systemd does not really change
> anything. At this stage both initscripts and systemd should support
> exactly the same config files.
>
> I'm happy to revert specific things based on detailed technical
> feedback, but please make the effort to at least understand the issues
> before shooting down everything.
>

For one, I don't understand the logic behind.

The only logic i can see is that you want to force existing users to
move to this "awesome" configurations schema but in the same time you
say "don't do it because your old rc.conf still works"

You won't make me do this kind of transition to move to systemd
compatibility.

> -t
>


--
IonuČ›
 
Old 07-21-2012, 10:47 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
> The only logic i can see is that you want to force existing users to
> move to this "awesome" configurations schema but in the same time you
> say "don't do it because your old rc.conf still works"

I want to give the best possible advice to new users, and I want to
alert current users to possible problems. I don't want to force anyone
to do anything. All that changed was the default file and the advice
given in the manpage, no functionality was or will be dropped.

I'm not insisting that the new rc.conf must be exactly like the one in
testing, but please give arguments on a case-by-case basis, and if you
suggest adding back variables that I have strongly recommended against
please argue why my recommendations are wrong.

> You won't make me do this kind of transition to move to systemd
> compatibility.

Ok. Then don't. We are committed to support all current and previous
options forever (and if we can't we will alert users to this).

-t
 
Old 07-21-2012, 10:47 PM
Sam Mulvey
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

On Jul 21, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

> Did you even bother to read what Tom wrote? You can still use your old
> rc.conf. It is just recommend to use the new config files instead. This
> makes using initscripts and systemd in parallel easier. And there are
> not 9k config files but three.


I've read what Tom wrote both here and in the man page, and he's talking about the ArchLinux /etc/rc.conf as "the old way" and people being "gently pushed" toward using the new configuration files. In my experience, that's a step on the road toward deprecation and non-support. For those of us who are well served by the rc.conf way of doing things, this could be a cause of concern, and now seems like an appropriate time to speak up.

I would prefer to run systemd as little as possible. A central config file and reasonably transparent init system fit my case much better.

-Sam
 
Old 07-22-2012, 12:38 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

What we need is someone to write a daemon that monitors rc.conf for
changes and then write them to the appropriate configuration file. Also
the opposite needs monitored, so when the separate configurations files
are changed (probably by GUI stuff), the changes are made back to rc.conf.

(That was not a serious idea...)

While I do still like the idea of a single system configuration file, it
is down the list of reasons I pick Arch. I also see why it is becoming
more difficult to support, with various efforts to standardize the
configuration of these standard system properties across distros so that
nice GUIs can edit them... Following the use of these more standard
configuration files instead of having broken behaviour in software that
tries to edit them, or having to patch the software to work with Arch
does seem the more Arch like approach to me.

I think Tom has done a good job in documenting the best practise and
also supporting the old syntax (which is not "broken" in any way, but
limited...). I have not moved to using the separate configuration files
(and probably will not until we officially move to systemd or I do a new
install) and everything seems to work.

Allan
 
Old 07-22-2012, 08:14 AM
Andreas Radke
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

I'm supporting all your effort to improve our boot process.

Arch was famous for its single rc.conf file configuration that now
seems to fade away. While this may be done for good technical reasons I
suggest to bring this up to some central point (hotplug/udev or
systemd list ). I'd like to see something developed that we can call a
common Linux early userspace configuration that would be equal in most
distributions. Something like all is read from /etc/system/*

-Andy
 
Old 07-22-2012, 02:41 PM
Rashif Ray Rahman
 
Default initscripts-2012.07.3

On 22 July 2012 16:14, Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org> wrote:
> I'm supporting all your effort to improve our boot process.
>
> Arch was famous for its single rc.conf file configuration that now
> seems to fade away. While this may be done for good technical reasons I
> suggest to bring this up to some central point (hotplug/udev or
> systemd list ). I'd like to see something developed that we can call a
> common Linux early userspace configuration that would be equal in most
> distributions. Something like all is read from /etc/system/*
>
> -Andy

I'm a bit taken aback by this, but that's just a natural reaction to
change. One central configuration file was always the thing I loved
most, but that doesn't mean it was the best approach technically.

For eg., if I could shave off some seconds from offloading some things
to upstream methods, then I could deal with a few more config files.
We got rid of rc.conf variables one by one, as the need arose.
Especially for module blacklisting, we couldn't continue to stick with
the time-consuming shell logic we had back then.

The bottom line is performance and balance. If you give me
performance, I'll take it. But of course, one second of removed boot
time for 3 more configuration files is not "performance". There needs
to be more of a tangible benefit from all this change. Otherwise, we
might as well skip all helper scripts and config files and edit every
single upstream-provided one.


--
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org