Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: > On 27/01/13 15:49, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > .... >> It's perfectly possible to build udev alone. We do that now. Our >> Makefile really isn't that complicated. It's just that they have >> specifically turned down patches that do just that. The systemd build >> system requires intltool (needs XML::Parser), gperf, libcap2, dbus, and >> glib (needs libffi and Python). Not exactly the minimal needs for LFS. >> > > You don't need glib to build a minimal systemd system. The minimal > requirements are dbus, kmod, util-linux, libcap, xz-utils, gperf, > intltool, and linux-headers. > What that boils down to are the following extra packages that I needed > to build a base LFS system: > attr > libcap > expat > XML-Parser > intltool > gperf > dbus > systemd
> The following packages where not needed: > sysklogd > sysvinit > udev > > That comes down to 5 more packages to build a systemd system. > On top of this, I did not need to install the lfs-bootscripts. Can we > count that as a package? Sure. > That comes down to only 4 more packages. To be > fair, I had to replace the 23 scripts from lfs-bootscripts with a single > [email protected] file to get my network connectivity up and running. What about the 45 scripts in BLFS? I know very few, if any, users need all of them, but they all would need to be addressed. > A nice feature I really like about systemd is in point 20, that is, all > sdtout/stderr of any system service is captured by the journal and each > log entry is related back to a process name and pid. If someone wants to create a version of LFS using systemd, I don't mind setting up a branch in svn to do that. I still feel that what happens inside of systemd is "magic" for the user who want to look at the boot process and see what is going on. IMO, the scripts are much more transparent. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
