Archlinux is moving to systemd

hoschi · 2012-08-18 10:54:59

Hello!

As far as I know Archlinux is moving now to systemd. Personally I fine with systemd, because I'm using it already. I'm also fine with SysVinit. I use systemd, because a dev told me that the move will likely happen in future and I had to install Archlinux some days ago on my new laptop.

Please but this and similar informations in the "latest news area" of archlinux.org, so everyone know what will happend and can prepare for this (e.g. reading in the wiki about systemd or even migrating immediately to systemd, preparing for problems with self written scritps and so on). This way of communication is really important for the community and developers

I know some that companys think Facebook, Google+ or Twitter are a way to communicate with their customers, especially because their own website are overloaded with unrelated marketing buzzwords and badly structured. We shouldn't follow this way. We have a well structured website for this! Personally I think a Official Google+ Account is an euphemism

Thank you for your patience

Sources:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/10081492503 … 9EaP6mP1th
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … px=MTE2MDE

Last edited by hoschi (2012-08-18 10:59:14)

Pierre · 2012-08-18 11:07:00

Google+ and especially Phoronix are not official sources for announcements.

Also see https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 23421.html and https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 23428.html

graysky · 2012-08-18 11:08:20

Source:
http://lwn.net/Articles/511193

Pierre · 2012-08-18 11:15:30

Also: we usually don't announce things that are still being discussed or worked on. People who are interested in development and future plans should read arch-dev-public.

Allan · 2012-08-18 11:16:32

If you want to follow Arch Linux development, read the arch-dev-public mailing list. Everything gets posted there before it happens...

Allan · 2012-08-18 11:17:36

graysky wrote:

Source:
http://lwn.net/Articles/511193

If that is a source for a systemd announcement, you it wrong...

fsckd · 2012-08-18 12:21:54

moderator comment: hoschi, I have editted the title and removed "Official Announcement". This is not an official announcement and it will confuse people to say it is.

graysky · 2012-08-18 12:30:03

Allan wrote:

graysky wrote:
Source:
http://lwn.net/Articles/511193
If that is a source for a systemd announcement, you it wrong...

Not meant to be an official sources just thought that the OP might want to add it to the list he started to compile.

hoschi · 2012-08-18 13:05:26

Thanks!

fsckd wrote:

moderator comment: hoschi, I have editted the title and removed "Official Announcement". This is not an official announcement and it will confuse people to say it is.

I'm apologize

Another point: Someone on the so-called "official" G+ stated:
"Arch will move to systemd only boot process..."
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+.
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.

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 23421.html

Question:
Did somebody informed phoronix about this? Phoronix itself is not the "most trustworthy source on the web", but wrong news are still wrong.
Also the "officiall" wasn't removed on the G+ page till now?

Well, I created that page on January and since then _we_ (managers' page: me,
Ionut, Ray, s, Daniel) never write something which wasn't announced by our
website. Until today.
I don't know who write that (neither I wanna know), but you pointed out
something true, so I already removed the "official" suffix from our page and
"fixed" the post about systemd. I hope this is ok now.
--
Andrea

Last edited by hoschi (2012-08-18 13:12:36)

karol · 2012-08-18 13:16:51

I posted to that ML thread too (to [arch-general]): http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/ … 29988.html

scottro · 2012-08-18 13:31:15

Maybe the quickest place to make it clear would be on the front page of archlinux.org--something along the lines of, Please note, official announcements are made on our news page. If Google+, Phoronix or any other website or social media claims that they have an official ArchLinux announcement, please check the news page first.

Then, you'll still get people saying, There is an official announcement, but then, as this is the Internet--see http://xkcd.com/386/ --it will quickly be pointed out that they are incorrect.

Although not very active in Arch, my own feeling would be that if it ain't in the news section, it ain't official. I also seem to remember (but could be wrong) that Allan once answered a query of mine by saying that something in testing wouldn't necessarily be announced on the news page--but if it's only in testing, one could probably get the impression that it's being, errrm, tested.

Last edited by scottro (2012-08-18 13:32:16)

karol · 2012-08-18 13:35:03

scottro wrote:

something in testing wouldn't necessarily be announced on the news page

Yup, things get announced as they move to non-testing repos. If you're using testing, you should be following arch-dev-public ML, so you get a heads-up too: announcement drafts and and tips for people using [testing] are posted there.

ngoonee · 2012-08-18 14:21:24

scottro wrote:

Please note, official announcements are made on our news page.

Except when they aren't. Its not like Arch has an official media/marketing team handling that.

89c51 · 2012-08-18 18:05:06

Pierre wrote:

Google+ and especially Phoronix are not official sources for announcements.
Also see https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 23421.html and https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 23428.html

Speaking of witch there are a number of twitter, facebook, Google+ pages that claim to be "Official". Is any of them truly run by Arch people or its just random people. G+ isn't but what about the rest. Does arch have any presence in the Social Web?

Last edited by 89c51 (2012-08-18 18:08:52)

ewaller · 2012-08-18 22:29:37

89c51 wrote:

[Speaking of witch there are a number of twitter, facebook, Google+ pages that claim to be "Official". Is any of them truly run by Arch people or its just random people. G+ isn't but what about the rest. Does arch have any presence in the Social Web?

Believe it or not, I have never visited any of those sites. A while back, there was a discussion of our facebook page being in need of some love on the (private) moderator forum.

ANOKNUSA · 2012-08-18 23:38:08

"Read the mailing lists" is the only worthwhile response to this thread. Expecting social media and tech-geek tabloids (has LWN ever done anything but rake muck?) to provide you with official information when the "official" source is readily available is preposterous, as is expecting a premature post on the "News" page when the issue is the OP failing to get informed. The fact that the Daily Mirror claims something without any official sources cited doesn't mean Der Spiegel needs to wast space on it too, does it?

89c51 · 2012-08-19 12:35:44

ewaller wrote:

89c51 wrote:
[Speaking of witch there are a number of twitter, facebook, Google+ pages that claim to be "Official". Is any of them truly run by Arch people or its just random people. G+ isn't but what about the rest. Does arch have any presence in the Social Web?
Believe it or not, I have never visited any of those sites. A while back, there was a discussion of our facebook page being in need of some love on the (private) moderator forum.

Well i found them an thought it was weird that they are not mentioned in the front page. Don't know if facebook or G+ would be necessary but a twitter account reporting news/announcements automatically wouldn't be bad. But its not up to me.

kokoko3k · 2012-08-19 12:42:31

Depsite what is the intention,
i really hope arch will not move to a pure systemd system and will mantain (as a dev said (tomegun?) in other threads) full rc.conf compatibility... forever.

Keep it simple, keep it simple, keep it simple,

please.

Last edited by kokoko3k (2012-08-19 12:44:14)

Awebb · 2012-08-19 12:50:32

Wasn't there some fuzz about an "official" G+ page a while back, when people asked for a Diaspora presence, but none of the staff used that network? Is that G+ thingy now official or what?

karol · 2012-08-19 12:55:41

Awebb wrote:

Wasn't there some fuzz about an "official" G+ page a while back, when people asked for a Diaspora presence, but none of the staff used that network? Is that G+ thingy now official or what?

Not sure what are you talking about. I know only this thread: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=129923

gondsman · 2012-08-19 13:18:56

I don't know if arch is going to move to systemd, but for sure some effort was put into making systemd the preferred init, judging from recent updates. I don't mind making changes to my system, as Arch is a rolling distro and I should expect it. The /lib to /usr/lib move was a good example, things change and the user should be informed and be ready to solve some issues if things go wrong.
If however, there's a known lack of functionality or a known limitation with the change, it should be made clear and the previous system should be maintained until glaring issues are solved. As an example, I can speak about my own pc: I have a fakeRAID on an Intel chipset (RAID1). It's a very commonly available solution and it's definitely not an "exotic" configuration. grub-legacy + dmraid + sysVinit played well together and everything was working fine. Now a "new" system would eventually default to grub2 and systemd, none of which works with fakeRAID.
Specifically, systemd fails at mounting the home directory: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=146982 and https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30134
It's a known issue: the bug was closed because "systemd upstream doesn't care about dmraid". This is not something the user can solve by himself.
I would like to know that I can still install Arch on my system without doing anything incredibly fancy (like always keeping a grub-legacy package lying around in case I had to re-install because grub2 wasn't working). I would like to know that the devs are making sure those issues are solved before changing something so basic as the init scripts.
Moreover, in my case this is clearly a problem with something specific to Arch, as fedora can use both grub2 and systemd just fine.

Awebb · 2012-08-19 13:20:05

This is what I was talking about. The title said "official", while the content clearly said "more or less semi-official". Well, whoever wrote that post, definitly shot the sherif.

bwat47 · 2012-08-19 14:19:48

gondsman wrote:

I don't know if arch is going to move to systemd, but for sure some effort was put into making systemd the preferred init, judging from recent updates. I don't mind making changes to my system, as Arch is a rolling distro and I should expect it. The /lib to /usr/lib move was a good example, things change and the user should be informed and be ready to solve some issues if things go wrong.
If however, there's a known lack of functionality or a known limitation with the change, it should be made clear and the previous system should be maintained until glaring issues are solved. As an example, I can speak about my own pc: I have a fakeRAID on an Intel chipset (RAID1). It's a very commonly available solution and it's definitely not an "exotic" configuration. grub-legacy + dmraid + sysVinit played well together and everything was working fine. Now a "new" system would eventually default to grub2 and systemd, none of which works with fakeRAID.
Specifically, systemd fails at mounting the home directory: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=146982 and https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30134
It's a known issue: the bug was closed because "systemd upstream doesn't care about dmraid". This is not something the user can solve by himself.
I would like to know that I can still install Arch on my system without doing anything incredibly fancy (like always keeping a grub-legacy package lying around in case I had to re-install because grub2 wasn't working). I would like to know that the devs are making sure those issues are solved before changing something so basic as the init scripts.
Moreover, in my case this is clearly a problem with something specific to Arch, as fedora can use both grub2 and systemd just fine.

dmraid is buggy and unmaintained, which is why systemd upstream doesn't care about it.

hoschi · 2012-08-19 15:41:04

89c51 wrote:

ewaller wrote:
89c51 wrote:
[Speaking of witch there are a number of twitter, facebook, Google+ pages that claim to be "Official". Is any of them truly run by Arch people or its just random people. G+ isn't but what about the rest. Does arch have any presence in the Social Web?
Believe it or not, I have never visited any of those sites. A while back, there was a discussion of our facebook page being in need of some love on the (private) moderator forum.

Well i found them an thought it was weird that they are not mentioned in the front page. Don't know if facebook or G+ would be necessary but a twitter account reporting news/announcements automatically wouldn't be bad. But its not up to me.

OMG! Please not!
Non of anything would, and is, required.You can't even explain why other sources than archlinux.org (this thread and the fact that I believed the wrong sources proof this) are trustworthy, nor why Arch should rely on the infrastructure of others. Despite the fact, that their is totally no benefit.

Last edited by hoschi (2012-08-19 15:43:25)

gondsman · 2012-08-19 17:21:49

I understand that dmraid is buggy, but then why other distributions can make systemd play nicely with it?
Anyway, we're going OT, my point was just that I hope the devs take into consideration problems like mine while deciding whether to make the switch or not.

Last edited by gondsman (2012-08-19 18:45:22)

Arch Linux

#1 2012-08-18 10:54:59

Archlinux is moving to systemd

#2 2012-08-18 11:07:00

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#3 2012-08-18 11:08:20

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#4 2012-08-18 11:15:30

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#5 2012-08-18 11:16:32

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#6 2012-08-18 11:17:36

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#7 2012-08-18 12:21:54

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#8 2012-08-18 12:30:03

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#9 2012-08-18 13:05:26

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#10 2012-08-18 13:16:51

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#11 2012-08-18 13:31:15

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#12 2012-08-18 13:35:03

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#13 2012-08-18 14:21:24

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#14 2012-08-18 18:05:06

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#15 2012-08-18 22:29:37

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#16 2012-08-18 23:38:08

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#17 2012-08-19 12:35:44

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#18 2012-08-19 12:42:31

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#19 2012-08-19 12:50:32

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#20 2012-08-19 12:55:41

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#21 2012-08-19 13:18:56

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#22 2012-08-19 13:20:05

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#23 2012-08-19 14:19:48

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#24 2012-08-19 15:41:04

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

#25 2012-08-19 17:21:49

Re: Archlinux is moving to systemd

Board footer