On 11/11/11 13:43, malina wrote: > Would you mind therefore, to share your thoughts on *why* you are left > with that impression that systemd is still not ready?
This had several reasons: 1. There were some very simple and obvious bugs, for example console not working properly or some administrative commands which were not working when particular files were symbolic links (as is the case in LFS when using symlink-style package management like I do). All of those problems were easy to fix or circumvent, but this made me realize that there are still not many people who use this software, test it and report bugs. 2. I noticed a strong orientation towards big distributions (especially fedora), which made me feel that the development and testing of systemd is centered around very specific types of systems. For example, plymouth and dracut (two packages which are used only by fedora IIRC, perhaps by other big distributions too) are listed as optional dependencies, and their systemd service files are installed even if they are disabled during the compilation. 3. I had a general feeling of incompleteness and inelegance in the way this system works. Perhaps that's a matter of personal taste or habit. Either way, once the package is installed and configured, it is very easy to use and administer and I haven't experienced any major problems with it. Keep in mind that there have been already 5 new releases of systemd since I installed it, so things may look different now. It is also worth mentioning that you can install both systemd and sysvinit with the init scripts, and choose between them by passing a kernel parameter (see the end of my previous post). This is how I did it when I was testing it. Hope that helps... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
