On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 22:46:12 +0100 Andreas Radke <andy...@archlinux.org> said:
I think various others have said what I would say, so I'll just say +1 to "stay with systemd only". My summary: It's just not worth the effort for the gain to do multiple init systems and is un-Arch like to do this because it certainly does not KISS. > The older Arch developers may remember vaguely how Arch has introduced > [1] and migrated to systemd [2] becoming the new and only supported init > system. Back in these days we had some developers in our team being part > of upstream systemd developers. Not much discussion happened about > supporting any alternative init system. Other alternative init systems > have become niche in Arch and faded out over time. > > Nowadays systemd has become much more than a plain init system > and plans to grow further. This may leadd to problems from a user and > system administrator perspective once you are hit by some bug. Systemd > as a whole thing doesn't care about the Unix philosophy to do only one > thing but well. > > Many and often highly skilled users left and leave Arch therefor or > choose some different distribution or an Arch fork because there's no > init choice in Arch Linux. > > I suggest to fix this lack of init choice/alternative. I'd like to > implement it into the official Arch Linux repos allowing to choose > some different init replacement. We can either just add a 2nd init > system in the most simple way or allow real init-freedom[3] offering > full choice and leave it up to be further filled by the community. > > Arch Linux could take advantage of this bringing back some lost parts > of the community. With more choice and better portability Arch could > become a better base for porting to new architectures. And freedom and > alternatives is always good in the open source world. The clear > drawback would become some added complexity allowing to choose either > systemd or its replacement parts and to make all of them to work with > existing packages especially daemon services. > > I'm willing to do most of the packaging implementations when a majority > of the team think it's good idea and worth the effort. It's a rather > huge effort and imho not a task for some personal custom repo as it may > affect devtools, infrastructure and maybe more of our core distro. > > If you want to check how some init choice can be implemented I suggest > to start looking at Parabola[4], Hyperbola[5] and [6] Artix Linux forks > first. These are all rather small projects but we being the mother and > true Arch community should have the resources to implement it in a > proper way without any major drawbacks. > > PS: Please leave out all emotions about hating or loving systemd. I'm > trying to do so as well. > > -Andy > > > [1]https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org/message/3JTBCAIKC7IELB6LMSEIS66E773OSKL5/ > [2]https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org/message/EK553KWVOY6UYBDSKAP5XQIPGHNLJXMH/ > [3]https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom > [4]https://wiki.parabola.nu/Repositories#nonsystemd > [5]https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:systemd_denial > [6]https://wiki.artixlinux.org/Main/Installation > > [6] -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com
