LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
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 11-16-2013, 09:28 PM   #91
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096

The good part about this implementation is that systemd can only be an alternative to the default SysV/BSDinit rather than replace it, and it's minimal, non-invasive, and isn't a hard dependency within the system.

Even I was skeptical due to the nature that systemd was originally designed to be like this, but Bart has proven that it can be minimized. Kudos to him for doing what other distributions refused to do, aren't doing and/or the original developers never thought of or considered as a proper implementation.

I think that if Slackware can show traditional sys/bsdinit scripting can still be feasible, Red Hat, Lennart, and the minions can't destroy Linux and ruin the UNIX ecosystem which has to be maintained. Without a working eco-system UNIX will not survive, and if UNIX goes, it will hurt, and maybe destroy BSD, Linux, and ever other flavor of UNIX based systems out there.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 11-17-2013 at 01:45 AM.
 
Old 11-17-2013, 02:48 AM   #92
tuxbg
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Location: Bulgaria,Varna
Distribution: Slackware64
Posts: 249

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
My startx command doesn't work anymore.I need to type startxfce4 to start xfce.
 
Old 11-17-2013, 03:13 AM   #93
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096
Assuming you still are using Slackware's ConsoleKit package, try this:

Code:
cd
cat > .xinitrc << "EOF"
startxfce4 --with-ck-launch
EOF
If this works you'll be fine.

Otherwise try using KDM or GDM, or maybe try and rebuild packages for X such as xorg-server, and xinit.
 
Old 11-17-2013, 04:34 AM   #94
Stuferus
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2013
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 143

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
The good part about this implementation is that systemd can only be an alternative to the default SysV/BSDinit rather than replace it, and it's minimal, non-invasive, and isn't a hard dependency within the system.

Even I was skeptical due to the nature that systemd was originally designed to be like this, but Bart has proven that it can be minimized. Kudos to him for doing what other distributions refused to do, aren't doing and/or the original developers never thought of or considered as a proper implementation.

I think that if Slackware can show traditional sys/bsdinit scripting can still be feasible, Red Hat, Lennart, and the minions can't destroy Linux and ruin the UNIX ecosystem which has to be maintained. Without a working eco-system UNIX will not survive, and if UNIX goes, it will hurt, and maybe destroy BSD, Linux, and ever other flavor of UNIX based systems out there.
sorry for the offtopic.
first i dont think unix can/will die.. than apple aka macosx would die thay depent also on it
secondly.. no redhat, lenny (lol) and the minions ignore slackware we are not importent i think.. its all about the "big ones".. ubunut, redhat, suse...
 
Old 11-17-2013, 06:19 AM   #95
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096
Actually Slackware gets plenty of notice being the oldest distribution being maintained. Lennart and the minions know all too well Slackware will be a roadblock of roadblocks to get fully converted to systemd.

They just have bigger fish to fry at the moment.
 
Old 11-17-2013, 07:42 AM   #96
bartgymnast
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Lelystad, Netherlands
Distribution: slack 7.1 till latest and -current, LFS
Posts: 264

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 91
well ReaperX7,

basically rebuilding shadow (as it needs to support 32 char groups), building systemd, and rebuilding dbus on top of systemd.
is all that is needed.

it is even possible to have the scripts from /etc/rc.d/ work directly, however they will need to be renamed.
and remove the rc. in front of each script.

a possible solution for this is to symlink for example /etc/rc.d/rc.httpd to /etc/rc.d/httpd
for this to work a small part in the systemd build scripts needs to be changed.
however, I have noticed that it doesnt work 100%

IMO, it is better to create a service file that starts the /etc/rc.d/rc.httpd script (and httpd doesnt have to be recompiled that way).
it also brings in advantages as you can control when it has to be started.

1 of the things I would love to see from Pat is to have udev extracted from an earlier version of systemd to have the libudev.so.1 librarie, and have the needed packages linked to that.
so that the ugly solution of linking libudev.so.0 to libudev.so.1 is not needed. (recompiling those packages ourselfs is offcourse also possible)

making sure that network works out of the box, was also 1 of my priorities, so I made sure inet1.conf settings work directly.
as some people use NetworkManager, I compiled polkit against systemd, and will do the same for NetworkManager.

After that I think, it might be a good idea to make unit files (xxx.service) from the scripts inside /etc/rc.d/ for people to grab and use.
 
Old 11-17-2013, 08:15 AM   #97
Knightron
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Planet Earth
Distribution: Slackware.
Posts: 1,343
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Slackware will be a roadblock of roadblocks to get fully converted to systemd.
I thought Arch would have been a big opponent too, but they adopted Systemd a lot sooner than i would have ever thought.
 
Old 11-17-2013, 05:58 PM   #98
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096
Arch is a very liberal distribution. They've been known to do worse. More enough times after a pacman update you can easily be left with a dead OS.

I wasn't surprised they did an early adoption. I was more surprised at the amount of hatred, bias, and disdain the developers raised against sysvinit and their own users asking only for a choice in what went in their system.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-17-2013, 06:22 PM   #99
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 867

Rep: Reputation: 401Reputation: 401Reputation: 401Reputation: 401Reputation: 401
Installing Arch is basically volunteering your box to someone else to experiment around with alpha software. ;-)
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-18-2013, 03:40 AM   #100
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,891

Rep: Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
More enough times after a pacman update you can easily be left with a dead OS.
I ran Arch for well over a year. I did very regular updates and I paid close attention to news from their homepage. I was never left with anything even close to a dead OS, just a couple of minor and momentary hiccups. In my experience most of those complaining about such problems do not regularly update (i.e. they wait weeks or months and then do massive updates) or they pay zero attention to what is going on with Arch development. Neither strategy works well with Arch as it goes against the core idea of what the distro is about (riding the bleeding edge). You must keep up with the constant change or you will drown. This way of working is of course is not for everyone but if a user selects Arch they should expect it.

I would also add Arch clearly states that it is targeted towards more advanced GNU/Linux users but you see from the forums that there are plenty who are not sure how to troubleshoot even minor issues. I suspect some of them assumed that just because they managed to get Arch installed they must be advanced but IMHO this is not true. So I believe that Arch gets an unfair share of complaints from people who probably were not ready to use it in the first place.

As a side note, I'm not sure I'd even count myself as an advanced GNU/Linux user (when I look at many of the others on these very forums and use this as a benchmark) but you probably what I am trying to say. Arch is not for everyone and it is probably not really for many of the people who try to use it.

Last edited by ruario; 11-18-2013 at 03:45 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-18-2013, 03:55 AM   #101
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096
Arch doesn't seem advanced. It's got lots of documentation, but it doesn't really present itself as advanced. It's just advanced in the aspect that you have to be extremely careful.

Gentoo and LFS both seem like a true advanced distribution by comparison, by which you are heavily involved with the system construction and configuration at core levels.
 
Old 11-18-2013, 04:10 AM   #102
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,891

Rep: Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946Reputation: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Arch doesn't seem advanced. It's got lots of documentation, but it doesn't really present itself as advanced.
Read what I said again, more carefully this time. I never said it was advanced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchWiki FAQ
Arch is targeted more towards advanced GNU/Linux users
Or to put that another way are making the distro for advanced users to use. That is the niche they are targeting. They may not be targeting them well however as they have plenty of users who are not advanced and that (IMHO) is the primary source of complaints about Arch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
It's just advanced in the aspect that you have to be extremely careful.
Exactly, as long as you have an skilled and competent user base (i.e. advanced), this is not necessarily a problem.

Anyway, I have just realised I caused this thread to go way off topic. My apologies to the OP.

EDIT: I will not be adding further comments to this thread with regards to Arch unless it somehow overlaps with the actual topic at hand, the OP's systemd implementation. If ReaperX7 or someone else wants to start a thread on the Arch subforum I may well join but it seems unfair to continue to have an Arch discussion here, even if I disagree with other stuff that has been said about Arch subsequent to this post.

Last edited by ruario; 11-18-2013 at 06:11 AM. Reason: Clarified a few things and tidied up the language. Added a further comment about the lack of follow ups regarding Arch.
 
Old 11-18-2013, 05:33 AM   #103
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: LFS-7.6, Slackware 14.1, FreeBSD 10.1
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096Reputation: 1096
Being advanced in carefulness required isn't something to be proud of. By requiring a greater level of care by the admin you add complexity to the system in levels that often are unnecessary. It's one thing to be advanced in ways like getting under the hood of the OS like Slackware, LFS, and Gentoo's approach does aiming at advancedness in design, simplicity, and technical aspects but overt levels of complexity that must be followed carefully do not promote advancedness.

It feels only like you have to be redundantly redundant in your approach, if that's even a proper terminology.

Last edited by ReaperX7; 11-18-2013 at 05:38 AM.
 
Old 11-18-2013, 07:48 AM   #104
turtleli
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Distribution: Main - Slackware 14.1, Others - Gentoo, Fedora
Posts: 139

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartgymnast View Post
It seems I will need to specify the locale directory

--localedir=/usr/lib$LIBDIRSUFFIX

I will add it to the slackbuild
Specifying --localedir did not fix the localectl list-locales problem.

/usr/lib/locale is hardcoded in the systemd source(src/locale/localectl.c line 394) and is not configurable. I added the below sed to your systemd SlackBuild which solves the problem for 64-bit.

Code:
sed -i -e "s|/usr/lib|/usr/lib${LIBDIRSUFFIX}|g" \
  src/locale/localectl.c || exit 1
 
Old 11-18-2013, 10:09 AM   #105
bartgymnast
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Lelystad, Netherlands
Distribution: slack 7.1 till latest and -current, LFS
Posts: 264

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 91
Hi Turtleli,

Thanks for this fix.
I have now reflected this in the slackbuild and tested on 64bit machine.

I also updated the inet1.service file to add a Conflicts=NetworkManager.service entry

Also Added NetworkManager as Slackbuild.

I will add 2 entries to the wiki tonight:
Networking with Slackware-Systemd
and ChangeLog
 
  


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 09:17 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