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 08-14-2012, 03:58 PM
Jelle van der Waa
 
Default Migration to systemd

On 08/14/12 17:55, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
>> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough
>> for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the
>> 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts
>> on two init systems.
>>
>> Any objections to start the migration process ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
>
> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't
> order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but
> I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an
> unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is
> systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for
> several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC?
>
> before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have
> been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should
> revisit them.
>
> Calvin
>
Tom has listed the advantages a couple of times in arch-general.

--
Jelle van der Waa
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:01 PM
Calvin Morrison
 
Default Migration to systemd

On 14 August 2012 11:58, Jelle van der Waa <jelle@vdwaa.nl> wrote:
> On 08/14/12 17:55, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
>>> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough
>>> for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the
>>> 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts
>>> on two init systems.
>>>
>>> Any objections to start the migration process ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Stéphane
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
>> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't
>> order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but
>> I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an
>> unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is
>> systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for
>> several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC?
>>
>> before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have
>> been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should
>> revisit them.
>>
>> Calvin
>>
> Tom has listed the advantages a couple of times in arch-general.
>
> --
> Jelle van der Waa
>

I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against
upstart or OpenRC
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:18 PM
Leonid Isaev
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:55:28 -0400
Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful
> > administrative features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it
> > has been around in our repositories for some time and that it could be
> > considered stable enough for production use, I would suggest to replace
> > iniscript by systemd once the 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we
> > will avoid duplicating our efforts on two init systems.
> >
> > Any objections to start the migration process ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> >
>
> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't
> order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but
> I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an
> unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is
> systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for
> several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC?

One advantage of systemd which people seem to overlook is its suspend support,
bypassing pm-utils. The latter is broken, has a looooong list of open bugs and
looks unmaintained. So +1 from me.

>
> before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have
> been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should
> revisit them.

Well, arch-general is a treasure troff... if you can search through 1000+
posts on the subject.

>
> Calvin



--
Leonid Isaev
GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D
Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:19 PM
Hilton Medeiros
 
Default Migration to systemd

On 08/14/2012 12:55 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful administrative
>> features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been around in
>> our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable enough
>> for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once the
>> 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our efforts
>> on two init systems.
>>
>> Any objections to start the migration process ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stéphane
>>
>>
> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't
> order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but
> I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an
> unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is
> systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for
> several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC?
>
> before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have
> been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should
> revisit them.
>
> Calvin

I, for one, congratulate Arch developers for this. They don't need to
give reasons. Remember that *Arch is a meritocracy*, not a democracy, if
the developers choose to do this, that is it. Trying to push your ideas
on others while not doing anything at all but giving your opinions is
completely useless for everyone involved, developers and users alike.
Developers have their own ideas that they actually want to implement for
free and share, they don't need your ideas unless they ask for it. *They
didn't ask for it.*

I just hope Arch developers would make this clearer, without fearing
losing users, and these guys, maybe, would stop spamming the mailing
lists with nonsense.

Cheers,
Hilton
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:19 PM
Brandon Watkins
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 14 August 2012 10:57, Stéphane Gaudreault <stephane@archlinux.org>
> wrote:
> > Systemd has a overall better design than SysV, lots of useful
> administrative
> > features and provide quicker boot up. Considering that it has been
> around in
> > our repositories for some time and that it could be considered stable
> enough
> > for production use, I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd once
> the
> > 'Missing systemd units' is over. Thus we will avoid duplicating our
> efforts
> > on two init systems.
> >
> > Any objections to start the migration process ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> >
>
> I'd love to see the overall advantages and disadvantages of each of
> those fleshed out on a page where I can read them - I know I can't
> order anyone to do it, and my comment doesn't effect the outcome, but
> I would really like to see a good explanation of the advantages in an
> unbiased (aka not by LP) explanation of why it is better for arch. Is
> systemd suckless? is it easy to maintain? is it going to around for
> several years? have we considered Upstart? what about OpenRC?
>
> before Arch jump ship, I would love to see some good details. I have
> been trying to keep up Tom's posts on the general, so maybe I should
> revisit them.
>
> Calvin
>
Systemd isn't going anywhere anytime soon, its going to be adopted by RHEL
(which means it would also be adopted by RHEL derivatives like CentOS), and
its being adopted by major distros like fedora, opensuse, mageia etc...
From what I've read systemd seems to have more active development and have
a more modern design than upstart that allows for more parallelism during
boot (even driven vs socket driven) I'm sure there's someone that can
explain that better than me though.

On the developer side, I'm sure it will make things easier for the arch
devs using the upstream "standard" init system, because it wil be well
tested across many distros. Also from what I've heard the systemd
developers have been quite friendly making fixes to systemd so that it
better supports arch.

On the user-side I find systemd much easier to maintain my system with than
sysvinit. I find the service files a lot cleaner and easier to understand
than initscripts (service files are also portable so they can be included
with upstream packages).
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:20 PM
Brandon Watkins
 
Default Migration to systemd

> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against
> upstart or OpenRC
>
Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from
lennart's site...
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:25 PM
Calvin Morrison
 
Default Migration to systemd

On 14 August 2012 12:20, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against
>> upstart or OpenRC
>>
> Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from
> lennart's site...
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html

This table looks like a bad advert "only our product includes all of
the features". of course I'm sure he made sure to only include those
ones that were yes for systemd... and quite a few are BS. one "yes" is
a graphical UI... sigh.

One thing about upstart I like is that it has good documentation, a
good development team, is also being adopted readily, and has good
unit testing in place. It also has a clear development direction.

Calvin
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:33 PM
Brandon Watkins
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 14 August 2012 12:20, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I remember seeing the comparisons against SysV but not at all against
> >> upstart or OpenRC
> >>
> > Comparison of systemd features vs upstart and sysv: note this is from
> > lennart's site...
> > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html
>
> This table looks like a bad advert "only our product includes all of
> the features". of course I'm sure he made sure to only include those
> ones that were yes for systemd... and quite a few are BS. one "yes" is
> a graphical UI... sigh.
>
> One thing about upstart I like is that it has good documentation, a
> good development team, is also being adopted readily, and has good
> unit testing in place. It also has a clear development direction.
>
> Calvin
>
Yep, thats what the disclaimer was for there's definitely some silly
stuff on the chart like the bzr vs svn vs bzr thing at the end lol, so of
course take it with a grain of salt.
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:34 PM
Pierre Schmitz
 
Default Migration to systemd

Am 14.08.2012 17:17, schrieb Dave Reisner:
> For the future:
>
> - drop rc.conf compat for systemd.

For me it actually caused some trouble that systemd reads rc.conf as
well.

> - finish the /usr migration. Not strictly related, but this makes
> writing unit files easier imo. Also lets us drop a local patch against
> systemd.
>
> In parallel, I'd love to see a working install media with systemd on it.
> I've got some changes planned for arch-install-scripts (and devtools) to
> use systemd-nspawn instead of all this manual chroot business (though
> the manual fallback will remain) as its sooooo much cleaner and easier
> Note that this also requires some changes that will be in systemd 189.

I'll definitely have a look at this when 189 is released. I am not sure
if we can use nspawn in ais at we might actually want to see the chroot
the real devices etc..

There are still a lot of unit files missing; we should create a todo
list. It would also be helpful to write down a simple wiki page with
some guidelines here. E.g. I am not sure if we should read those
/etc/conf.d/$damon files from the unit files as well or drop these as
the user should override unit files in /etc.

We also might need to add a little force to push the migration process.
E.g. at some point a missing unit file is a bug and might result in the
package being dropped.

Greetings,

Pierre

--
Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
 
Old 08-14-2012, 04:39 PM
Andrea Scarpino
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Tuesday 14 August 2012 18:34:13 Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> There are still a lot of unit files missing; we should create a todo
> list. It would also be helpful to write down a simple wiki page with
> some guidelines here.

Did I miss something or did you miss the Jan's todo list[1]?

> E.g. I am not sure if we should read those
> /etc/conf.d/$damon files from the unit files as well or drop these as
> the user should override unit files in /etc.

Indeed, I was wondering if we should adapt our packages to the layout used by
the upstream systemd services files. E.g. the upstream proftpd service sources
/etc/system/proftpd, but our packages installs /etc/conf.d/proftpd.

[1] https://www.archlinux.org/todo/178/

--
Andrea
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 AM.

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