On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 8:01 AM Christian Hesse <l...@eworm.de> wrote:
> Andreas Radke <andy...@archlinux.org> on Fri, 2022/12/16 22:46: > > 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. [...] > > I remember these days, though I was a regular user back then. :) > > The biggest argument again systemd is its complexity. Some people do prefer > simple init systems with init scripts. > > I agree. Wanting the most capable init system and wanting a more lightweight init system both sound like legitimate arguments. > Let's recap: Sure, systemd is complex, but it is well maintained (IMHO). > Generally it works well. The benefit is that systemd units can be written > quite easily, at least basic ones. Issues are easy to fix, things just > work. > In contrast to that the complexity comes from the init scripts with the > other > init systems. For each of them, again and again. Syntax errors, race > conditions, what ever. > > Many bugs of this type were filed in Flyspray. If we go back to having initscripts as the default (which no one is suggesting) they are sure to come back. The mere availability of another init system in the repos though will probably cause much less of a headache. There are versions of init freedom which would be too much work as people have rightly pointed out. So let me make a concrete proposal. 1. Put openrc in [community] which I have used on my laptop for two years without issue. 2. Make it depend on systemd (so it is clear we are not packaging eudev) and make installation print a warning that users of netctl and devtools will need to find alternatives. 3. Put openrc-arch-services in [community] as well, 4. Bugs for these two packages will be assigned to one of the three people who've expressed interest (Andreas, TJ and myself).
