What If .........Slack needs Systemd (Slackbuilds)
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
as an old slacker i agree with those that dont want systemd, you cant just build a drop-in replacement of the init system, its like the launch codes on an ICBM multi-warhead nuclear missile = not something to be meddling with if you want it to all work properly
As far as I know, SystemD does not support /usr being a separate filesystem unless you yourself ensure that it gets mounted before SystemD starts (i.e. you need to mount it in the initrd). See http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software...usr-is-broken/ for a piece of arrogance barfed up by our favourite Slackware destroyer.
Eric
As far as I know, the separate /usr issue exists right now, even with the glorious and so orthodox udev. This is the price payed to have a super-cool auto-configuration, but having apps or libraries as dependencies in /usr...
That's why most of us we need a properly initrd to boot our super nice auto-configured (and so encrypted?) operating system.
To be honest, even I believe too that the page author is a rare piece of arrogance, still I do not see nothing wrong in that page...
Distribution: slack 7.1 till latest and -current, LFS
Posts: 368
Original Poster
Rep:
good to hear tuxbg,
the next package on my list to do this weekend is util-linux.
this package is linked against libudev.so.0, but systemd/udev since v187 (if not mistaken) is using libudev.so.1
As you see in the systemd.slackbuild it uses currently the ugly hack of linking libudev.so.0 to libudev.so.1
That should at the end not be needed anymore.
If you came across things that might seem to be a problem, do not hesitate to write it here. or send to my mail
Long story short, the SystemD works in your system as expected and you consider that, as replacement (now!) of the orthodox BSD-like init of Slackware, it works equal or even better?
As far as I know, SystemD does not support /usr being a separate filesystem unless you yourself ensure that it gets mounted before SystemD starts (i.e. you need to mount it in the initrd). See http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software...usr-is-broken/ for a piece of arrogance barfed up by our favourite Slackware destroyer.
Now, see, most days I don't mind systemd too much, but then they have things like this:
Quote:
Here's a short, very in-comprehensive list of software we are aware of that currently are not able to provide the full set of functionality when /usr is split off and not pre-mounted at boot: udev-pci-db/udev-usb-db and all rules depending on this (using the PCI/USB database in /usr/share), PulseAudio, NetworkManager, ModemManager, udisks, libatasmart, usb_modeswitch, gnome-color-manager, usbmuxd, ALSA, D-Bus, CUPS, Plymouth, LVM, hplip, multipath, Argyll, VMWare, the locale logic of most programs and a lot of other stuff.
And I think - why not just mount the stuff on fstab first? And who wants to run this stuff before filesystems come up? hplip? Really? Is it a problem that their core init program is linked to all this stuff, and this stuff is on /usr? How about not making the init linked to all this and, after processing fstab, start the bigger part of systemd? Seems easier than changing a 40-something-year-old concept.
But then I read this, and I get it. The word 'Solaris' appears 12 times. Compatibility to other Unixes/Linuxes translates to Solaris. Upstream is Solaris. Despite our closer cousins in BSD, they don't get mentioned once. It's an enterprise move so that Oracle doesn't need to try so hard to port our software.
In the end, if the technical reasons don't make sense, it's because they're made after the fact - it's really about the politics.
But now I'm being mean. I still want to see good stuff come out of these SlackBuilds!
EDIT: Heh, we were still on page 2 when I started that... whoops...
Last edited by jprzybylski; 11-14-2013 at 02:54 PM.
Long story short, the SystemD works in your system as expected and you consider that, as replacement (now!) of the orthodox BSD-like init of Slackware, it works equal or even better?
I just wont to test it.What's the problem?Why everybody judge me?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.