thomas wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 12:33 +0200 schrieb Thierry Nuttens:
>> Hello.
>>
>> I thing its a very good idea to go for a possibility to choose between
>> systemd and SySV. Simply because, it's an endless debate, peoples are for
>> SySV or for systemD, both parties are convinced by
Am Sonntag, den 30.03.2014, 12:33 +0200 schrieb Thierry Nuttens:
> Hello.
>
> I thing its a very good idea to go for a possibility to choose between
> systemd and SySV. Simply because, it's an endless debate, peoples are for
> SySV or for systemD, both parties are convinced by they choice.
That
Hello.
I thing its a very good idea to go for a possibility to choose between
systemd and SySV. Simply because, it's an endless debate, peoples are for
SySV or for systemD, both parties are convinced by they choice.
For dbus, with the kdbus module coming slowly in the stable branch of the
kernel
Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> On 2014-03-29 06:32, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Just a progress report. I've had some success. I can boot the same
>> system to either sysd or sysv. I have a couple of short scripts to
>> switch. For example:
>>
>> $ cat set-sysd
>> #! /bin/bash
>> for p in init halt poweroff
On 2014-03-29 06:32, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Just a progress report. I've had some success. I can boot the same
> system to either sysd or sysv. I have a couple of short scripts to
> switch. For example:
>
> $ cat set-sysd
> #! /bin/bash
> for p in init halt poweroff reboot runlevel shutdown teli
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I did a little more checking. If eudev is dropped and the full systemd
> is substituted in a standard LFS environment, the following have name
> collisions:
>
>1 /usr/share/man/man8/shutdown.8
>2 /usr/share/man/man8/poweroff.8
>3 /usr/share/man/man8/telinit.8
>
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:07:16 -0500
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
>
> akhiezer wrote:
>
> > But those packages would auto- drop-out if a user is building/following the
> >
akhiezer wrote:
> But those packages would auto- drop-out if a user is building/following the
> non-sysd track of the book, right?
Not necessarily. There are several packages that people have suggested
are not necessary in LFS. I don't remember which, but LFS has never
been aimed at a minimum
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:41:37 -0500
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
>
> akhiezer wrote:
>
> > And in any event, you're still aiming at adding an "ifs'n'buts" lay
Thomas Trepl wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. März 2014, 11:22:38 schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
>> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
>> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions:
>>
>> systemd
DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> On 03/25/14 11:22, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> First, let me say that I personally love that idea. I feel that LFS was kind
> of loosing sight of the primary goal by not introducing systemd. However, are
> you suggesting that LFS have optional instructions? That's not bad in itself,
>
Am Dienstag, 25. März 2014, 11:22:38 schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions:
>
> systemd sysvinit eudev
>
On 03/25/14 11:22, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions:
>
> systemd sysvinit eudev
> udevd
>
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions:
>
> systemd sysviniteudev
> systemd-udevdudevd
>
akhiezer wrote:
> And in any event, you're still aiming at adding an "ifs'n'buts" layer to
> the lfs-main book - the type of thing that has been argued against many
> many times.
Yes, if we end up doing this, it is a major change from our traditional
methodology. It would, in fact, be LFS 8.0.
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:21:54 -0500
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
>
.
.
>
> I understand your concerns, but the development branch is for, well,
> development. If wha
akhiezer wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:22:38 -0500
>> From: Bruce Dubbs
>> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
>> Subject: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
>>
>> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
>> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the inst
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:22:38 -0500
> From: Bruce Dubbs
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist
> Subject: [lfs-dev] Thoughts about LFS and systemd
>
> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
> conte
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Armin K. wrote:
>> On 03/25/2014 05:22 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
>>> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
>>> contents in the books, I see the
Armin K. wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 05:22 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
>> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
>> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions:
>>
>> systemd sysvinit eudev
>>
On 03/25/2014 05:22 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been looking at systemd and had a thought that perhaps both could
> be put into a single LFS build. Looking at the installed package
> contents in the books, I see the following name collisions:
>
> systemd sysvinit eudev
>u
21 matches
Mail list logo
