Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

tomegun · 2012-07-23 14:25:24

Onyros wrote:

Just moved to systemd (with initscripts-systemd, suppose it'll keep on being supported) and I have a very, very important complaint right now: the green! Aaaaarrrggghhh, it hurts my eyes. Can't we change it to good old Arch blue?

Hm, is something green? The OK's you mean?

Onyros · 2012-07-23 14:27:29

Yeah, but don't worry, I was just kidding (well, if there *is* a way to change those to blue, even better).

The initscripts were so much more elegant in display

krum · 2012-07-23 14:30:33

Onyros wrote:

Yeah, but don't worry, I was just kidding (well, if there *is* a way to change those to blue, even better).
The initscripts were so much more elegant in display

Just edit the scripts of systemd... oh shit

thoho180192 · 2012-07-23 17:14:53

I like the arch style of booting too !

ngoonee · 2012-07-23 23:56:54

swordfish wrote:

Over the last days I read a lot - here in the forum an I read and re-read several postings on arch-dev-public. As a conclusion it became clear, that the changes to rc.conf happen because of the ongoing switch to systemd (at least I hope that I got that right ).

This part isn't correct, really. systemd switch may happen (or not) in the future, the dev in charge of initscripts would prefer it that way, but these particular changes were made for upstream reasons, not 'in preparation for a switch to systemd'.

Roken · 2012-07-24 22:32:26

OK, I finally got around to setting up everything to use the new rc.conf, and one thing gave me trouble until I'd read enough, and that was setting the hostname.

Can I ask why everything else is whatever.conf (locale.conf, vconsole.conf, somemodule.conf) but setting the hostname isn't done with hostname.conf, just simply /etc/hostname (which isn't clear from the notes at the head of the new rc.conf - I spent 10 minutes trying things with the hostname command to get a persistent hostname). Surely it would be more logical to maintain convention with /etc/hostname being /etc/hostname.conf?

EDIT: Whilst I'm at it, a heads up that vconsole.conf is required separately from locale.conf if you want your keyboard configured everywhere would have been nice, too, or have the system default to locale.conf is vconsole.conf is missing.

Last edited by Roken (2012-07-24 22:37:14)

tomegun · 2012-07-24 22:39:05

Roken wrote:

Can I ask why everything else is whatever.conf (locale.conf, vconsole.conf, somemodule.conf) but setting the hostname isn't done with hostname.conf, just simply /etc/hostname (which isn't clear from the notes at the head of the new rc.conf - I spent 10 minutes trying things with the hostname command to get a persistent hostname). Surely it would be more logical to maintain convention with /etc/hostname being /etc/hostname.conf?

It's a Debian-ism. For some background on the different config files, see: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-ne … files.html

Roken · 2012-07-24 22:52:42

OK, got it. Perhaps one of the poorer choices since hostname already exists (as a completely different entity) in /bin, which is what lead to my own confusion, and I've been around the block a few years on Linux.

I suppose since it's a "fire and forget" config option it's not the end of the world. Just struck me as wrong for a couple of reasons.

farvardin · 2012-07-26 05:15:25

Pierre wrote:

the old rc.conf entries are still supported.

ok, but for how long?

Allan · 2012-07-26 05:16:35

farvardin wrote:

Pierre wrote:
the old rc.conf entries are still supported.
ok, but for how long?

Until you are told otherwise in a news post.

Awebb · 2012-07-26 06:34:13

farvardin wrote:

Pierre wrote:
the old rc.conf entries are still supported.
ok, but for how long?

If you anxious people didn't produce so much white noise, you'd actually witness all the important facts. I remember one dev saying, that the rc.conf will be supported "forever", but between all that nagging and disinformation, it is impossible to find that post again.

PhotonX · 2012-07-26 07:05:26

Awebb, like here: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 7#p1133957 ?

jamesbond007 · 2012-07-29 15:27:42

tomegun wrote:

Once initscripts goes to [core] I'll post a news item.

@tomegun: initscripts appeared in [core] two days ago. Where is the news item? ;-)

tomegun · 2012-07-29 15:53:48

jamesbond007 wrote:

tomegun wrote:
Once initscripts goes to [core] I'll post a news item.
@tomegun: initscripts appeared in [core] two days ago. Where is the news item? ;-)

Got delayed, in the works.

-t

kaipee · 2012-07-30 10:49:43

OK so I just updated my system today and seen that rc.conf got a rc.conf.pacnew

I tried to have a look on News or elsewhere about information relating to this - but nothing.
I'm a very new Arch user (still setting up and configuring) and I now see that everything I previously configured needs to be re-done in different (separate) config files??

I'm not an old-hat Linux user so don't know much about where all these configs are kept - is there anywhere I can read up on what needs changed / created / removed ?? I'm afraid to reboot my system now in case something borks, it's taken me almost a week to get where I am now (all sorts of problems installing and setting up).

This is really just slowly becoming a headache. I have other work to get on with, without having to deal with spending so much time on just getting a PC to work.

tomegun · 2012-07-30 11:13:09

kaipee wrote:

OK so I just updated my system today and seen that rc.conf got a rc.conf.pacnew
I tried to have a look on News or elsewhere about information relating to this - but nothing.
I'm a very new Arch user (still setting up and configuring) and I now see that everything I previously configured needs to be re-done in different (separate) config files??
I'm not an old-hat Linux user so don't know much about where all these configs are kept - is there anywhere I can read up on what needs changed / created / removed ?? I'm afraid to reboot my system now in case something borks, it's taken me almost a week to get where I am now (all sorts of problems installing and setting up).
This is really just slowly becoming a headache. I have other work to get on with, without having to deal with spending so much time on just getting a PC to work.

See "man archlinux" for an overview. Or "man rc.conf" for more details about rc.conf. Everything should still work if you just keep your old file.

kaipee · 2012-07-30 11:16:40

tomegun wrote:

See "man archlinux" for an overview. Or "man rc.conf" for more details about rc.conf. Everything should still work if you just keep your old file.

Cheers tomegun I'll have a look at those later. I'm actually having to move house today so I can't spend time on chasing all these details up.
It's nice to know I can actually have a working machine after I turn it off today and back on tomorrow in my new place.

skanky · 2012-07-30 12:25:05

ngoonee wrote:

krum wrote:
The real issue is, I think, only a lack of communication.
As a simple user, if I don't follow the arch-dev-public mailinglist, where could I find a central point of information (maybe a wiki page) regarding the whole systemd/rc.conf transition/futur/draft?
Not only the technical information but also the differents arguments from devellopers about this situation (to understand and not flame the forum after).
As a horse, if I don't walk up to the feedlot, where can I find another place with hay? The point of arch-dev-public is for such information. You don't even need to be subscribed to it to read it (and unless you want to put your input in, you can just read the parts you're interested in after having been notified via archlinux.org). You DO need to be subscribed to it if you want to know what's coming up. That's the central point of information.

Just as an extra, you don't need to be subscribed to it by email, I use the rss feed to keep up with it - that way I only get a post per thread, and can follow up on ones that interest me.

TheCuban · 2012-07-30 12:49:00

Once I got the update pulled down and saw the .pacnew, I just compared the .pacnew to the original rc.conf, read the news, and then went on my merrily self on separating the information. I think this change is great because now my rc.conf not only looks cleaner, the info that I change the most (DAEMONs when installing new, awesome stuff) is there at the forefront of the file.

Now, onto reading up on systemd and seeing if it'll benefit me.

On the sake of saving me Googling time, is there a file in /etc/ that I can use for networking? So as to separate that from rc.conf?

tomegun · 2012-07-30 12:50:35

TheCuban wrote:

On the sake of saving me Googling time, is there a file in /etc/ that I can use for networking? So as to separate that from rc.conf?

If you use the 'network' daemon that comes with initscripts, then that's still configured in rc.conf. If you use networkmanager, netcfg, or something else that's configured separately.

TheCuban · 2012-07-30 12:52:43

tomegun wrote:

TheCuban wrote:
On the sake of saving me Googling time, is there a file in /etc/ that I can use for networking? So as to separate that from rc.conf?
If you use the 'network' daemon that comes with initscripts, then that's still configured in rc.conf. If you use networkmanager, netcfg, or something else that's configured separately.

Yup, that's what I use, the 'network' daemon that comes with initscripts. Thanks for clarifying that, though I should of known that already.

clovenhoof · 2012-07-30 12:56:27

Hi,

Where are those rc.conf changes you are talking about?
I just did pacman -Syu on my system and rebooted after that.

Now, I cannot see any difference between my current rc.conf and rc.conf.pacnew

kaipee · 2012-07-30 12:57:32

So do I keep things like sshd, xinted, gdm in the DAEMONS section of rc.conf or do they get added/configured somewhere separately ?

tomegun · 2012-07-30 13:03:43

kaipee wrote:

So do I keep things like sshd, xinted, gdm in the DAEMONS section of rc.conf or do they get added/configured somewhere separately ?

DAEMONS is unchanged. Just keep things there as you did before.

kaipee · 2012-07-30 13:25:51

Thanks again tomegun

Arch Linux

#26 2012-07-23 14:25:24

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#27 2012-07-23 14:27:29

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#28 2012-07-23 14:30:33

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#29 2012-07-23 17:14:53

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#30 2012-07-23 23:56:54

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#31 2012-07-24 22:32:26

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#32 2012-07-24 22:39:05

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#33 2012-07-24 22:52:42

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#34 2012-07-26 05:15:25

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#35 2012-07-26 05:16:35

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#36 2012-07-26 06:34:13

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#37 2012-07-26 07:05:26

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#38 2012-07-29 15:27:42

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#39 2012-07-29 15:53:48

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#40 2012-07-30 10:49:43

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#41 2012-07-30 11:13:09

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#42 2012-07-30 11:16:40

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#43 2012-07-30 12:25:05

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#44 2012-07-30 12:49:00

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#45 2012-07-30 12:50:35

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#46 2012-07-30 12:52:43

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#47 2012-07-30 12:56:27

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#48 2012-07-30 12:57:32

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#49 2012-07-30 13:03:43

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

#50 2012-07-30 13:25:51

Re: Has rc.conf become unnecessary?

Board footer