Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

lilsirecho · 2012-08-31 16:58:50

The wiki has the following warning:

Warning: /usr must be mounted and available at bootup (this is not particular to systemd). If your /usr is on a separate partition, you will need to make accommodations to mount it from the initramfs and unmount it from a pivoted root on shutdown. See the mkinitcpio wiki page and freedesktop.org#separate-usr-is-broken

Interpreting this statement suggests that /usr is required for systemd to function. If there is no /usr, will systemd peform?

I have a system without /usr, only /root.

Will my system of raid0 grub2 partitioned boot fail with systemd?

I see systemd package in the pacman -Syu menu. Will installing that package ruin my system as it stands?

Is systemd the to- be-all for archlinux?

Last edited by lilsirecho (2012-10-23 20:54:23)

progandy · 2012-08-31 17:01:34

If you have no /usr-partition, then everything is fine because then the /usr-tree is located on the root partition.

lilsirecho · 2012-08-31 17:10:19

One query answered.............

Runiq · 2012-08-31 18:32:26

lilsirecho wrote:

I see systemd package in the pacman -Syu menu. Will installing that package ruin my system as it stands?

The systemd package itself does nothing if you still use SysV init, so it shouldn't do anything to your boot process either. You would have to explicitely enable systemd by supplying a parameter to you kernel line of your bootloader.

Previously, systemd was split into 3 different packages, and one of them provided udev. For people who didn't use systemd but required udev, installing this one package was enough. Now, with systemd-189, the three packages have been merged into the one called systemd, so you need that if you want udev functionality.

Last edited by Runiq (2012-08-31 18:32:43)

gondsman · 2012-08-31 19:11:32

systemd and raid don't go along well at the moment. Actually, they don't go along well with arch, because they work if I install fedora. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31236
You can always try, worst case it doesn't boot, you can go back to sysVinit just modifying a line in your bootloader config.
By the way, the simple thing that the devs can't figure out what causes our problem with mounting /home at boot (especially since mounting the partition with the mount command works) leads me to think that systemd is still very far away from being in a usable state for everyone. In my opinion is also a bad idea, seeing how difficult is to troubleshoot very simple problems (btw, seriously, BINARY LOGS?), but I understand Arch is not a democracy, so the devs can make whatever choices they see fit. I really hope our problems will get taken care of before making the switch though.

Inxsible · 2012-08-31 19:38:54

gondsman wrote:

........By the way, the simple thing that the devs can't figure out what causes our problem with mounting /home at boot (especially since mounting the partition with the mount command works) leads me to think that systemd is still very far away from being in a usable state for everyone. In my opinion is also a bad idea, seeing how difficult is to troubleshoot very simple problems (btw, seriously, BINARY LOGS?), but I understand Arch is not a democracy, so the devs can make whatever choices they see fit. I really hope our problems will get taken care of before making the switch though.

If it is so simple as you say, why don't you create a patch and submit it to the devs. That will show them how stupid they are, don't you think?

ANOKNUSA · 2012-09-01 00:21:01

lilsirecho wrote:

Is systemd the to- be-all for archlinux?

This is the second time I've seen a phrase like this. What does this even mean?

As for your raid0 failing to boot at any time, well--I'm sure you don't need to be told that, should it fail to boot, systemd might just be one of many causes...

gondsman · 2012-09-01 12:13:11

Inxsible wrote:

If it is so simple as you say, why don't you create a patch and submit it to the devs. That will show them how stupid they are, don't you think?

I didn't mean to offend anyone, let alone the devs who are trying to help us making this thing work. My point is that it's not simple anymore. With sysVinit it was rather easy to understand what was going on during boot (my home partition was mounted with a "mount" command), with systemd it is much more complicated, hence troubleshooting problems is more difficult.

ANOKNUSA wrote:

As for your raid0 failing to boot at any time, well--I'm sure you don't need to be told that, should it fail to boot, systemd might just be one of many causes...

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. If the array boots with the initscripts and not with systemd, what else can the cause be?

lilsirecho · 2012-09-18 15:04:30

Have successfully booted into raid0 array with permanent systemd installed.

However, my system uses xfce4 and requires startx components. When attempting to log-in at the prompt, I often get failed access to the xfce4 desktop.

The process can complete...that is, log-in as root, enter passwd and use startxfce4 to reach Desktop.

Other attempts fail log-in step by providing root prompt allowing access to system directories, no internet.

Attempting to enter startxfce4 with this root prompt gives Xorg fail data reporting :

cannot move old log file /var/log/Xorg.0.log to...../var/log/Xorg.0.log.old.

Some of the attempts to reach xfce4 Desktop are successful and the internet is accessed per the enabled service file. The systemd operates normally thereafter.

I find in googling a startx service file which needs graphical wants but no xfce4 service file.

It appears that xfce4 needs a two-step handling in systemd.

Perhaps I misunderstand systemd operations (not a new development!) and there is a service file somewhere for xfce4.

In normal archlinux boots, rc.local was used to startxfce4. Perhaps it can be applied in systemd to do the Xorg and xfce4 services? The /etc/rc.local file is now a pacsave file. Attempts to use a service file called rc.local were unsuccessful. I suspect I cannot use the nomenclature "rc.local.service" in systemd, perhaps, rc-local.service is accepted?

It remains to be the only item I need to establish a good boot setup into xfce4.

lilsirecho · 2012-09-19 02:46:16

Generated a service file that works for xfce4 ( but not every time). Boots in 12 seconds to Desktop.

EDIT: Kernel is 3.4.5-1 with polkit installed. Seems to run slower in Fallback but starts xfce4.

Last edited by lilsirecho (2012-09-19 02:58:23)

Arch Linux

#1 2012-08-31 16:58:50

Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#2 2012-08-31 17:01:34

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#3 2012-08-31 17:10:19

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#4 2012-08-31 18:32:26

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#5 2012-08-31 19:11:32

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#6 2012-08-31 19:38:54

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#7 2012-09-01 00:21:01

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#8 2012-09-01 12:13:11

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#9 2012-09-18 15:04:30

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

#10 2012-09-19 02:46:16

Re: Systemd question(usr HOOK needed for USB booting)

Board footer