LinuxQuestions.org
Go Job Hunting at the LQ Job Marketplace
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-14-2014, 04:16 PM   #301
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046

I see no reason at all why this shouldn't be possible.
 
Old 02-14-2014, 04:53 PM   #302
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 2,205

Rep: Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
I see no reason at all why this shouldn't be possible.
the major problem is that it and the services it starts is a complete replacement.

It can't be optional. If you use systemd, then you must also use services designed to be used with systemd. If you prefer the current system, then you must use a completely different set of services.

When you try to mix the two, things break. The system will not boot reliably, and will not shutdown reliably.
 
Old 02-14-2014, 06:59 PM   #303
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 316

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
You can ask questions about systemd, its design and whatever all day long, if you want, but the topic of this thread is not systemd in general, it is about bartgymnast's efforts to get it running properly on Slackware. Ask your questions in a different thread, nobody will hinder you.
OK so lets say I oblige and ask a question in a new thread. If you have observed the other threads, they fall apart for a number of reasons. One that has been seen before is the group of people that say "OH no, not another systemd thread!". Another group will say, "Well it's already being discussed <here>" and pointing to some thread that has some supposed authority on the topic. Another group will start openly discussing systemd much as if they haven't got a chance to explain things in previous threads.

When will we finally just say, in order to solve the issue on "what if ... systemd," we need to compare and contrast, even when painful, and let the conversation just take place, or are we going to keep focusing on a narrow interpretation on what a topic is, and create threads for every question? If we had a thread for every question, we actually would start filling up this form with how much discussion has taken place already? Can't we just leave people alone, let one thread hash it out in every way, rather than deciding what's right or wrong approach to a conversation? I'll tell you what, without a "just let people be" there really is no point to even trying talk here on systemd anymore. This is why I and other people have just stopped, because the constant threat of moderating the thread into oblivion.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-14-2014, 07:48 PM   #304
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Main: Gentoo Others: What fits the task
Posts: 15,592
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046Reputation: 4046
If you have a problem with my style of moderation feel free to discuss that with Jeremy. In the meantime, just abide to the LQ Rules:
Quote:
When posting in an existing thread, ensure that what you're posting is on-topic and relevant to the thread. If the content of your post will interfere with the current discussion, you should start a new thread.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-14-2014, 08:24 PM   #305
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,209
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828Reputation: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpollard View Post
the major problem is that it and the services it starts is a complete replacement.

It can't be optional. If you use systemd, then you must also use services designed to be used with systemd. If you prefer the current system, then you must use a completely different set of services.

When you try to mix the two, things break. The system will not boot reliably, and will not shutdown reliably.
That being said, I think this would warrant the possibility of creating a testing fork exclusively designed for systemd just to make sure anything and everything that might go wrong with cross-contamination of the init systems is avoided. At least this way any work can be done in an exclusive environment solely for systemd.
 
Old 02-14-2014, 09:54 PM   #306
ngc891
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Location: South Korea
Distribution: Slackware64 OpenBSD
Posts: 50

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartgymnast View Post
If you wish to help in making slackbuilds, improving slackbuilds, or creating documentation for it. you can reply that here, or send me an email at < bartgymnast - at - hotmail - dot - com >
You can also find me on irc.freenode.org in channel #dropline
Your libpwquality SlackBuild installs Python bindings under /lib or /lib64 which seems weird to me. Any reason why you're not just using --prefix=/usr --bindir=/bin --libdir=/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX} and --with-securedir=/lib for all arch (like udev)?
 
Old 02-15-2014, 04:46 AM   #307
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 27,310
Blog Entries: 54

Rep: Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860Reputation: 2860
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3dfxdude View Post
When will we finally just say, in order to solve the issue on "what if ... systemd," we need to compare and contrast, even when painful, and let the conversation just take place, or are we going to keep focusing on a narrow interpretation on what a topic is, and create threads for every question? If we had a thread for every question, we actually would start filling up this form with how much discussion has taken place already? Can't we just leave people alone, let one thread hash it out in every way, rather than deciding what's right or wrong approach to a conversation? I'll tell you what, without a "just let people be" there really is no point to even trying talk here on systemd anymore. This is why I and other people have just stopped, because the constant threat of moderating the thread into oblivion.
Let me step in here for a second.

First of all Linuxquestions.org has always been and will always aim to be the friendly place to talk all things Linux. This takes the will to discuss things properly and cooperation, and in some cases patience and restraint. Fellow LQ members and moderators alike are, should be, responsible and committed to make LQ succeed. And as I see things peer moderation plays an important role in keeping things running smoothly. Please realize LQ moderators only step in on behalf of the LQ Community when the situation warrants it. Please remind yourself that a moderator may post in a thread both as moderator as well as regular participant. Should there be any confusion about that please ask for clarification. Next Linuxquestions.org was selected as the primary forum for your distribution so one should not only try to keep things running smoothly out of respect for Jeremy, who owns and pays for LQ and therefore sets the rules, but also out of respect for your distributions figure head(s).

Now you may be under the impression that you're bringing a game-changing argument to the table or that the discussion wasn't handled in a definitive way already. The Facts dept. tells me that right now there have been thirteen threads in this specific forum on Systemd, the first of which was started on 08-06-11, about a year before you started posting in Systemd-related threads, and the authoritative answer on System was given in both the [SOLVED] slackware and systemd and [SOLVED] systemd and Slackware's future thread. *Also please note any threads closing notes as they unfortunately shed a light on the MO a lot of forum users seem to favour.


So where does that leave you all? Note that since 2011 only two LQ members have had the guts to step up to the plate and actually try and make a difference. Since elvis4526 seems to have ceased his efforts, in which poor responses seem to have at least played some part, the only remaining one is bartgymnast.

As the OP said in his initial post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartgymnast View Post
If you wish to help in making slackbuilds, improving slackbuilds, or creating documentation for it. you can reply that here, (..)
Ergo, if ones intent is to contribute in a constructive manner to the topic on hand then this is the thread to post in.
If that is not the case then this clearly is not the thread to post in.
I can not make it any simpler than that.

Clear?
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-15-2014, 05:54 AM   #308
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,031
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by unSpawn View Post
Clear?
Absolutely 100% crystal clear, like a mountain spring.
 
Old 02-15-2014, 09:22 AM   #309
the3dfxdude
Member
 
Registered: May 2007
Posts: 316

Rep: Reputation: 88
Quote:
Now you may be under the impression that you're bringing a game-changing argument to the table or that the discussion wasn't handled in a definitive way already. The Facts dept. tells me that right now there have been thirteen threads in this specific forum on Systemd, the first of which was started on 08-06-11, about a year before you started posting in Systemd-related threads, and the authoritative answer on System was
I'm not saying the listed threads wasn't definitive on the current path on the matter. It certainly my own opinion I have no need to discuss this and no more threads are necessary. What I am saying that other people don't feel that way. This thread is a prime example where bart found something that he thought wasn't definitive. But research into the matter is being hampered by an insistence that narrow objective that other members questions be asked in new topics. So a moderator is feeding the creation of new threads, and has posted so several times, and certain forum members are following his lead. This only means more systemd threads are now going being created. That is way I'm suggesting to the moderators just leave it alone, especially with the moderator becoming emphatic "I can't take this anymore" type attitude.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-15-2014, 10:03 AM   #310
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
i like to read the technical discussion here since i like technical stuff
i, like some others, don't personally like systemd on a couple levels, but still will not clutter this topic with it
the topic is getting systemd to run on slackware
ty
 
Old 02-15-2014, 10:33 AM   #311
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 2,205

Rep: Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by genss View Post
i like to read the technical discussion here since i like technical stuff
i, like some others, don't personally like systemd on a couple levels, but still will not clutter this topic with it
the topic is getting systemd to run on slackware
ty
Getting systemd to "run" is not the problem. It most likely will run once you get binary(s)...

Getting the rest of the system to run with systemd is a bigger problem.
 
Old 02-15-2014, 10:46 AM   #312
genss
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Posts: 191

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
yes
my simple mind implies everything working properly

bdw i had a thought
cant you just make the (high part of) slackware scripts a .service that depends on the lower parts (udev and such) ?
 
Old 02-15-2014, 11:53 AM   #313
jpollard
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2012
Location: Washington DC area
Distribution: Fedora, CentOS, Slackware
Posts: 2,205

Rep: Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by genss View Post
yes
my simple mind implies everything working properly

bdw i had a thought
cant you just make the (high part of) slackware scripts a .service that depends on the lower parts (udev and such) ?
Nope. Because those "high part" can depend on other "high parts"... and if they are not started in the proper order, they don't work. And "proper order" means that the first process must be ready to receive a request from the dependent service. The way systemd is designed, it cannot know that - so it assumes it is ready when started... which is not always true. So the only way for that to work is to modify the service to tell systemd when it is ready - then systemd can start the dependent service.
 
Old 02-26-2014, 04:27 AM   #314
bartgymnast
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Lelystad, Netherlands
Distribution: slack 7.1 till latest and -current, LFS
Posts: 258

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 87
A new update will soon be comming with systemd-210

Please Note, that I will save the 208 slackbuild as it is considered stable.

209 introduces systemd.networkd and requires some other programs, like dbus and NetworkManager to be patches (a specific git commit has been made to work with systemd-209+ (or need to wait for there new version)

systemd-210 is basically 209 with bug fixes.
 
7 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-26-2014, 04:51 AM   #315
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,842

Rep: Reputation: 850Reputation: 850Reputation: 850Reputation: 850Reputation: 850Reputation: 850Reputation: 850
@bartgymnast: Thanks for your continued work on this despite so much negativity. I must admit I have not found the time to play with your SlackBuilds yet but making it easier for others to test this is something I greatly appreciate!
 
4 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration