[arch-dev-public] Migration to systemd

[Eric Bélanger]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> My plan:
>>
>> 1) Tell people to migrate to systemd.
>> 2) Make new installations use systemd by default.
>> 3) Stop holding back packages because of systemd. For example: polkit
>> requires either consolekit or systemd. Drop ck support, use systemd.
>> This means that most desktop users will need to switch to systemd - but
>> a server that doesn't even have dbus will (for the time being) keep
>> working with initscripts.
>> 4) Drop initscripts as soon as udev starts breaking without systemd.
>>
>> I guess it will take lots of time before we do 4).
>
> I agree wholeheartedly (assuming all the needed things such as unit
> files are in place before we do (1), as discussed earlier in the
> thread). I suppose what will trigger initscripts being dropped is
> people getting sick of maintaining rc scripts for our packages, which
> will probably happen long before udev stops working (but even that
> should be a long time into the future).

That also looks like agood plan to me.

I suppose that developpement of initscripts will stop, i.e. no more
new features or bug fixes. That should gently push users to systemd
and it might become the reason to remove it from the repo (step 4).

>
>> As Tom stated (and he maintains systemd and initscripts), this is not
>> true. This angers me because
>>
>> 1) Something untrue and/or unprecise is being posted on the "official" G+.
>
> That is indeed imprecise, but I'll admit that I didn't notice myself...
>
>> 2) There are claims that this G+ is official. Neither our website, nor
>> any place else states that there is an official Arch G+ (or Facebook)
>> page and links to it. This G+ has not been approved by developers to be
>> "official". Yet, someone here claims to be the official G+.
>>
>> This must stop. If we present ourselves on social media, I want it to be
>> approved on the private mailing list first. And if someone starts that
>> discussion, it will get a big -1 from me.
>
> Yeah, we should probably discuss that (though I'm personally overall
> happy with the G+ page).
>
> -t