Migration to systemd
 

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

Migration to systemd
 

On 15/08/12 00:57, Stéphane Gaudreault 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 ?
>

+1 - this move needs done now. Delaying it longer will just be painful.

Allan

Migration to systemd
 

On Wednesday 15 August 2012 01:04:48 Allan McRae wrote:
> +1 - this move needs done now. Delaying it longer will just be painful.

I couldn't agree more. Go for it.

--
Andrea

Migration to systemd
 

On di, 2012-08-14 at 10:57 -0400, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote:
> Any objections to start the migration process ?

Go ahead. Maintaining 2 systems is a lot of duplicate work. Besides the
duplicate work, you'll get covered in patches trying to support setups
that avoid installing something new.

Polkit is an example of this: we have a patch to make systemd optional
at runtime, we request users to test it, and instead of testing it we
end up with a 300+ posts thread about how bad Lennart is, with nearly
no-one trying to investigate what is wrong about the patch and in which
situations it doesn't work.

Migration to systemd
 

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, 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 ?

A big +1 from me.

As to the future of initscripts: I am (as I keep saying) committed to
maintaining it as long as it is part of our repos (at some point I
expect it will not be any more). We'll make sure that the transition
to systemd is such that initscripts can still be installed for the
time being if that is desired. However, I expect that third-party
packages (gnome, NetworkManager, polkit, etc.) at some point will stop
working well without systemd, so that is something to consider if you
stick with initscripts.

Cheers,

Tom

Migration to systemd
 

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:57:42AM -0400, Stéphane Gaudreault 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 ?

At this point, I've had a _lot_ of people give the same feedback -- the
transition is more or less seamless. As you mention, we're simply
lacking the unit file coverage to make this the default.

+1 to finishing off what we're obviously sitting in the middle of.

A few things to encourage this which were discussed on IRC:

- merge systemd back to a single package (aside from sysvcompat)
- split off some of the tools from sysvinit (pidof, last, ...)

For the future:

- drop rc.conf compat for systemd.
- 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.

d

Migration to systemd
 

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
> A few things to encourage this which were discussed on IRC:
>
> - merge systemd back to a single package (aside from sysvcompat)
> - split off some of the tools from sysvinit (pidof, last, ...)
>
> For the future:
>
> - drop rc.conf compat for systemd.
> - finish the /usr migration. Not strictly related, but this makes
> writing unit files easier imo. Also lets us drop a local patch against
> systemd.

Another big +1 from me on this too.

-t

Migration to systemd
 

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, 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
>
>

+1 from me. I want to be able to start getting rid of ConsoleKit where possible.

Migration to systemd
 

[2012-08-14 10:57:42 -0400] Stéphane Gaudreault:
> I would suggest to replace iniscript by systemd

Let's do it. It's about time we lose these ML trolls.

--
Gaetan

Migration to systemd
 

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