On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 02:32:07PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Svante Signell
> > On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 18:42 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > Svante Signell <svante.sign...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > I'm trying to install as little as possible of systemd stuff, and guess > > > > what happens: When booting one of the laptops boot starts with: > > > > systyemd-fsck <disks> > > > > Is systemd taking over everything?? How to reduce the number of > > > > systemd-* features. > > > It's a small wrapper around fsck that handles status reporting in a way > > > that works well with the journal and with systemd boot-time status > > > reporting and takes care of some dbus coordination and whatnot. I believe > > > It's basically the equivalent of all the shell logic in checkroot.sh and > > > checkfs.sh. In other words, well within the mandate for anything that > > > handles early boot, replacing shell scripts that were previously provided > > > by initscripts. > > > The actual fsck work is still done by the separate fsck binary, just like > > > it always has been. > > Well, I've not been asked if I wanted to switch to systemd based boot > > when upgrading. I think this is a bug in init system choice and should > > be reported. > The default has changed and you chose to accept the defaults when you > upgraded. The default hasn't changed; sysvinit still lists sysvinit-core as the first alternative for its pre-dependency on /sbin/init. What is forcing systemd-sysv onto users systems in advance of this change? I don't think systemd integration is in a state today that this is ready to become the default. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
