[gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

William Hubbs closed bug #409385[1] as fixed, introducing
virtual/service-manager and adding it to the @system set, and dropping
OpenRC from baselayout's post dependencies.

Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
systemd, with no OpenRC installed. Since that was the raison d'être of
the gentoo-systemd-only overlay[2], I'm deprecating it soon.

If you install dracut you will also pull sysvinit (it's needed for
killall5, IIRC), and installing baselayout (instead of
systemd-baselayout) will make orphans of some systemd configuration
files (like /etc/vconsole.conf and /etc/machine-info); but I consider
those only minor problems, and I would strongly recommend to *anyone*
using my gentoo-systemd-only overlay to drop it and use the official
mechanism in the tree to install only systemd, replacing completely
OpenRC.

Also, without OpenRC we don't have /etc/init.d/functions.sh , but you
can use the alternatives provided in my overlay or in bug #373219[3].
I'm pretty sure someone will close that bug pretty soon.

Basically, systemd is now a first class citizen in Gentoo (on par with
OpenRC), and therefore there is no need at all for using my overlay.
Thanks to all the people who helped me with pull requests and
comments; the deprecation of the overlay is great news, since now it's
officially possible in Gentoo to ditch OpenRC and switch completely to
systemd.

Regards.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409385
[2] https://github.com/canek-pelaez/gentoo-systemd-only
[3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[»Q«]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 03:22:02 -0500
Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Basically, systemd is now a first class citizen in Gentoo (on par with
> OpenRC), and therefore there is no need at all for using my overlay.
> Thanks to all the people who helped me with pull requests and
> comments; the deprecation of the overlay is great news, since now it's
> officially possible in Gentoo to ditch OpenRC and switch completely to
> systemd.

Thanks for all the work everybody's done on this, and thanks in advance
for all the work to come.  The emphasis on choice is one of the main
reasons I'm a Gentoo user, and it's good to see you care about
providing choice for such an important thing as system manager.  

And thanks for ensuring that no disruption was caused to those of us
who continue to choose OpenRC.  (Or IMO trivial disruption at worst,
like the little bits of cruft that can be install-masked.)

Another of the main reasons I use Gentoo is (well, was) the emphasis on
proving thorough, clear information.  I don't know enough about init
systems to really judge, but <https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd>
looks very thorough, and it's definitely clear, so thanks for that too.

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 28/07/13 11:22, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Basically, systemd is now a first class citizen in Gentoo (on par with
> OpenRC)

This is great. Thanks to everyone involved!

Does someone know whether a KDE system can work reliably with systemd, 
or there still issues?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Pavel Volkov]

On Monday 29 July 2013 14:04:38 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 28/07/13 11:22, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > Basically, systemd is now a first class citizen in Gentoo (on par with
> > OpenRC)
> 
> This is great. Thanks to everyone involved!
> 
> Does someone know whether a KDE system can work reliably with systemd,
> or there still issues?

It is reliable, but for now I'll suggest adding "-consolekit" line into
/etc/portage/profile/use.force

(at least if you use default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde profile like me)

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Michael Palimaka]

On 30/07/2013 17:04, Pavel Volkov wrote:
> It is reliable, but for now I'll suggest adding "-consolekit" line into
> /etc/portage/profile/use.force
>
> (at least if you use default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde profile like me)
>
>
Good news, we will be making changes with KDE 4.11 so that we no longer 
force the USE flag in the profile.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Pavel Volkov]

On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> William Hubbs closed bug #409385[1] as fixed, introducing
> virtual/service-manager and adding it to the @system set, and dropping
> OpenRC from baselayout's post dependencies.
> 
> Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
> systemd, with no OpenRC installed. 

Really? Bug 373219 is still open.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Pavel Volkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
> > systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
>
> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
>

Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
what you've done :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 751 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> > Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
>> > systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
>>
>> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
>
>
> Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
> what you've done :)

Mmmh, and I missed this last reply of you.

Anyway, dealing with /etc/init.d/functions.sh is basically trivial.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[covici]

Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> > Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
> >> > systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
> >>
> >> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
> > what you've done :)
> 
> Mmmh, and I missed this last reply of you.
> 
> Anyway, dealing with /etc/init.d/functions.sh is basically trivial.

But still, we have lots of packages with no systemd units -- shouldn't
they all have a systemd use flag and units to go with it -- basically
anything which has something in /etc/init.d .  I was looking for a
sendmail unit and could find nothing, for one example.



-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >> > Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
>> >> > systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
>> >>
>> >> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
>> > what you've done :)
>>
>> Mmmh, and I missed this last reply of you.
>>
>> Anyway, dealing with /etc/init.d/functions.sh is basically trivial.
>
> But still, we have lots of packages with no systemd units -- shouldn't
> they all have a systemd use flag and units to go with it -- basically
> anything which has something in /etc/init.d .  I was looking for a
> sendmail unit and could find nothing, for one example.

Yeah, we are not even near 100% coverage. However, one of the many
advantages of systemd is that a service unit from a distribution
usually works as-is or with minimal changes in any other.

For many basic unit files, you can go to

https://github.com/vonSchlotzkow/systemd-gentoo-units

It has a unit file  for postfix, for example. If the one you are
looking for is not there, you can search in other distributions. If
you download the RPM from
http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/21317874/dir/fedora_19/com/sendmail-8.14.7-1.fc19.i686.rpm.html,
and extract the files with rpm2tarbz2, then you can get the
sendmail.service file.

It will probably need some changes to work with Gentoo, but it should
not be difficult.

When is working, you can send your unit to the package maintainer in
Gentoo, and at some point it could be included in the package (like
the OpenRC init script).

That's how we will get 100% coverage, eventually.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[covici]

Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> >> > Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
> >> >> > systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
> >> > what you've done :)
> >>
> >> Mmmh, and I missed this last reply of you.
> >>
> >> Anyway, dealing with /etc/init.d/functions.sh is basically trivial.
> >
> > But still, we have lots of packages with no systemd units -- shouldn't
> > they all have a systemd use flag and units to go with it -- basically
> > anything which has something in /etc/init.d .  I was looking for a
> > sendmail unit and could find nothing, for one example.
> 
> Yeah, we are not even near 100% coverage. However, one of the many
> advantages of systemd is that a service unit from a distribution
> usually works as-is or with minimal changes in any other.
> 
> For many basic unit files, you can go to
> 
> https://github.com/vonSchlotzkow/systemd-gentoo-units
> 
> It has a unit file  for postfix, for example. If the one you are
> looking for is not there, you can search in other distributions. If
> you download the RPM from
> http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/21317874/dir/fedora_19/com/sendmail-8.14.7-1.fc19.i686.rpm.html,
> and extract the files with rpm2tarbz2, then you can get the
> sendmail.service file.
> 
> It will probably need some changes to work with Gentoo, but it should
> not be difficult.
> 
> When is working, you can send your unit to the package maintainer in
> Gentoo, and at some point it could be included in the package (like
> the OpenRC init script).
> 
> That's how we will get 100% coverage, eventually.

OK, I will check those -- thanks.  I hope package maintainers now start
putting those service units in, now that systemd is required by gnome.


-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

There is going to be resistance. Two months ago there was a huge
thread in gentoo-dev, because a package maintaner complained that his
co-maintainer added a systemd unit to the package:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/85792

In the end, the maintainer rage-quit:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2551

However, this is the extreme behaviour: most developers (and rational
people) agree to adding systemd unit files to all packages, and we
have much better coverage now that some months ago.

If users cooperate opening bugs adding systemd unit files (after
testing them in their machines), the coverage is going to grow even
faster.

Regards.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
>> > Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >> >> > Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
>> >> >> > systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
>> >> > what you've done :)
>> >>
>> >> Mmmh, and I missed this last reply of you.
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, dealing with /etc/init.d/functions.sh is basically trivial.
>> >
>> > But still, we have lots of packages with no systemd units -- shouldn't
>> > they all have a systemd use flag and units to go with it -- basically
>> > anything which has something in /etc/init.d .  I was looking for a
>> > sendmail unit and could find nothing, for one example.
>>
>> Yeah, we are not even near 100% coverage. However, one of the many
>> advantages of systemd is that a service unit from a distribution
>> usually works as-is or with minimal changes in any other.
>>
>> For many basic unit files, you can go to
>>
>> https://github.com/vonSchlotzkow/systemd-gentoo-units
>>
>> It has a unit file  for postfix, for example. If the one you are
>> looking for is not there, you can search in other distributions. If
>> you download the RPM from
>> http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/21317874/dir/fedora_19/com/sendmail-8.14.7-1.fc19.i686.rpm.html,
>> and extract the files with rpm2tarbz2, then you can get the
>> sendmail.service file.
>>
>> It will probably need some changes to work with Gentoo, but it should
>> not be difficult.
>>
>> When is working, you can send your unit to the package maintainer in
>> Gentoo, and at some point it could be included in the package (like
>> the OpenRC init script).
>>
>> That's how we will get 100% coverage, eventually.
>
> OK, I will check those -- thanks.  I hope package maintainers now start
> putting those service units in, now that systemd is required by gnome.
>
>
> --
> Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
> How do
> you spend it?
>
>          John Covici
>          covici@ccs.covici.com
>



-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Daniel Campbell]

On 07/30/2013 05:40 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> There is going to be resistance. Two months ago there was a huge
> thread in gentoo-dev, because a package maintaner complained that his
> co-maintainer added a systemd unit to the package:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/85792
> 
> In the end, the maintainer rage-quit:
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2551
> 
> However, this is the extreme behaviour: most developers (and rational
> people) agree to adding systemd unit files to all packages, and we
> have much better coverage now that some months ago.
> 
> If users cooperate opening bugs adding systemd unit files (after
> testing them in their machines), the coverage is going to grow even
> faster.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
>> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
>>>> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>>>>>> Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
>>>>>>>> systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
>>>>>> what you've done :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Mmmh, and I missed this last reply of you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, dealing with /etc/init.d/functions.sh is basically trivial.
>>>>
>>>> But still, we have lots of packages with no systemd units -- shouldn't
>>>> they all have a systemd use flag and units to go with it -- basically
>>>> anything which has something in /etc/init.d .  I was looking for a
>>>> sendmail unit and could find nothing, for one example.
>>>
>>> Yeah, we are not even near 100% coverage. However, one of the many
>>> advantages of systemd is that a service unit from a distribution
>>> usually works as-is or with minimal changes in any other.
>>>
>>> For many basic unit files, you can go to
>>>
>>> https://github.com/vonSchlotzkow/systemd-gentoo-units
>>>
>>> It has a unit file  for postfix, for example. If the one you are
>>> looking for is not there, you can search in other distributions. If
>>> you download the RPM from
>>> http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/21317874/dir/fedora_19/com/sendmail-8.14.7-1.fc19.i686.rpm.html,
>>> and extract the files with rpm2tarbz2, then you can get the
>>> sendmail.service file.
>>>
>>> It will probably need some changes to work with Gentoo, but it should
>>> not be difficult.
>>>
>>> When is working, you can send your unit to the package maintainer in
>>> Gentoo, and at some point it could be included in the package (like
>>> the OpenRC init script).
>>>
>>> That's how we will get 100% coverage, eventually.
>>
>> OK, I will check those -- thanks.  I hope package maintainers now start
>> putting those service units in, now that systemd is required by gnome.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
>> How do
>> you spend it?
>>
>>          John Covici
>>          covici@ccs.covici.com
>>
> 
> 
> 


What's irrational about that guy's reasons for being against the systemd
unit files? I remember that thread, and he made some decent technical
points. Unfortunately, the council rejected a systemd USE flag, so the
best route was shot in the head before it had a chance. Yet OpenRC needs
a USE flag to enable it... rather fishy.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Daniel Campbell <lists@sporkbox.us> wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 05:40 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> There is going to be resistance. Two months ago there was a huge
>> thread in gentoo-dev, because a package maintaner complained that his
>> co-maintainer added a systemd unit to the package:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/85792
>>
>> In the end, the maintainer rage-quit:
>>
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2551
>>
>> However, this is the extreme behaviour: most developers (and rational
>> people) agree to adding systemd unit files to all packages, and we
>> have much better coverage now that some months ago.
>>
>> If users cooperate opening bugs adding systemd unit files (after
>> testing them in their machines), the coverage is going to grow even
>> faster.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
>>> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM,  <covici@ccs.covici.com> wrote:
>>>>> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
>>>>>>>>> systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I missed your explanation at the end about that one. Ok, thanks for
>>>>>>> what you've done :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mmmh, and I missed this last reply of you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, dealing with /etc/init.d/functions.sh is basically trivial.
>>>>>
>>>>> But still, we have lots of packages with no systemd units -- shouldn't
>>>>> they all have a systemd use flag and units to go with it -- basically
>>>>> anything which has something in /etc/init.d .  I was looking for a
>>>>> sendmail unit and could find nothing, for one example.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, we are not even near 100% coverage. However, one of the many
>>>> advantages of systemd is that a service unit from a distribution
>>>> usually works as-is or with minimal changes in any other.
>>>>
>>>> For many basic unit files, you can go to
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/vonSchlotzkow/systemd-gentoo-units
>>>>
>>>> It has a unit file  for postfix, for example. If the one you are
>>>> looking for is not there, you can search in other distributions. If
>>>> you download the RPM from
>>>> http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/4/idpl/21317874/dir/fedora_19/com/sendmail-8.14.7-1.fc19.i686.rpm.html,
>>>> and extract the files with rpm2tarbz2, then you can get the
>>>> sendmail.service file.
>>>>
>>>> It will probably need some changes to work with Gentoo, but it should
>>>> not be difficult.
>>>>
>>>> When is working, you can send your unit to the package maintainer in
>>>> Gentoo, and at some point it could be included in the package (like
>>>> the OpenRC init script).
>>>>
>>>> That's how we will get 100% coverage, eventually.
>>>
>>> OK, I will check those -- thanks.  I hope package maintainers now start
>>> putting those service units in, now that systemd is required by gnome.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
>>> How do
>>> you spend it?
>>>
>>>          John Covici
>>>          covici@ccs.covici.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> What's irrational about that guy's reasons for being against the systemd
> unit files? I remember that thread, and he made some decent technical
> points. Unfortunately, the council rejected a systemd USE flag, so the
> best route was shot in the head before it had a chance. Yet OpenRC needs
> a USE flag to enable it... rather fishy.

You need an OpenRC use flag to install OpenRC init scripts? That's
simply a lie. If you don't want OpenRC scripts in /etc/init.d, you
need to set INSTALL_MASK accordingly. The same with systemd if you
don't want unit files in /usr/lib/systemd/system.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:00:23AM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Daniel Campbell <lists@sporkbox.us> wrote:

> You need an OpenRC use flag to install OpenRC init scripts? That's
> simply a lie.

  An apology to Daniel might be in order.  I start my USE flag with "-*".
During a recent install, I found out "the hard way" that eudev (and udev)
do not install their init scripts without the "openrc" flag.  As you can
see from the ebuild fragments below, they require the "openrc" flag to
pull in sys-fs/udev-init-scripts

From sys-fs/udev/udev-197-r8.ebuild
===================================
PDEPEND=">=virtual/udev-197-r1
        hwdb? ( >=sys-apps/hwids-20130114[udev] )
        openrc? ( >=sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-19-r1 )"

From sys-fs/eudev/eudev-1_beta4-r1.ebuild
=========================================
PDEPEND=">=virtual/udev-180
        openrc? ( >=sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-18 )"

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:00:23AM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Daniel Campbell <lists@sporkbox.us> wrote:
>
>> You need an OpenRC use flag to install OpenRC init scripts? That's
>> simply a lie.
>
>   An apology to Daniel might be in order.  I start my USE flag with "-*".
> During a recent install, I found out "the hard way" that eudev (and udev)
> do not install their init scripts without the "openrc" flag.  As you can
> see from the ebuild fragments below, they require the "openrc" flag to
> pull in sys-fs/udev-init-scripts
>
> From sys-fs/udev/udev-197-r8.ebuild
> ===================================
> PDEPEND=">=virtual/udev-197-r1
>         hwdb? ( >=sys-apps/hwids-20130114[udev] )
>         openrc? ( >=sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-19-r1 )"
>
> From sys-fs/eudev/eudev-1_beta4-r1.ebuild
> =========================================
> PDEPEND=">=virtual/udev-180
>         openrc? ( >=sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-18 )"

udev/eudev are special cases: the first is systemd with systemd
removed at make install time; the second is a fork of systemd with
systemd exorcised. The systemd package also uses the "openrc" USE flag
to install OpenRC init scripts; I hope you agree that it is also an
special case (systemd, which is a whole init system, provides init
scripts for another init system). The package sys-apps/kmod also uses
the "openrc" USE flag to install an init script, which "Create[s] [a]
list of required static device nodes for the current kernel". I have
no idea why this is necessary, but kmod is a dependency of systemd,
and the developers of both projects collaborate a lot  between them.

No other package in the tree uses an "openrc" USE flag (or at least
they don't appear in /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc), except for
plymouth, and that it's to install a plugin for OpenRC, not to install
its OpenRC scripts.

So no package in the tree uses an "openrc" USE flag to install init
scripts, except for one somewhat related to systemd, two forks and/or
special handling of systemd, and systemd itself. In *ALL* the other
packages in the tree, the OpenRC init scripts are installed
unconditionally, as the systemd unit files are.

And that's how it should be.

Lastly, the ebuilds for udev/eudev should work out of the box in a
sane configuration. You have been told several times, both by users
and developers, that USE="-*" is not really supported; you broke your
system by using it, you get to keep the pieces.

Gentoo is about choice (or so I keep hearing); that doesn't mean it
shouldn't strive to have sane defaults that keep the majority happy:

http://blogs.gentoo.org/mgorny/2013/07/23/keeping-the-majority-happy/

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[covici]

Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:00:23AM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote
> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Daniel Campbell <lists@sporkbox.us> wrote:
> >
> >> You need an OpenRC use flag to install OpenRC init scripts? That's
> >> simply a lie.
> >
> >   An apology to Daniel might be in order.  I start my USE flag with "-*".
> > During a recent install, I found out "the hard way" that eudev (and udev)
> > do not install their init scripts without the "openrc" flag.  As you can
> > see from the ebuild fragments below, they require the "openrc" flag to
> > pull in sys-fs/udev-init-scripts
> >
> > From sys-fs/udev/udev-197-r8.ebuild
> > ===================================
> > PDEPEND=">=virtual/udev-197-r1
> >         hwdb? ( >=sys-apps/hwids-20130114[udev] )
> >         openrc? ( >=sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-19-r1 )"
> >
> > From sys-fs/eudev/eudev-1_beta4-r1.ebuild
> > =========================================
> > PDEPEND=">=virtual/udev-180
> >         openrc? ( >=sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-18 )"
> 
> udev/eudev are special cases: the first is systemd with systemd
> removed at make install time; the second is a fork of systemd with
> systemd exorcised. The systemd package also uses the "openrc" USE flag
> to install OpenRC init scripts; I hope you agree that it is also an
> special case (systemd, which is a whole init system, provides init
> scripts for another init system). The package sys-apps/kmod also uses
> the "openrc" USE flag to install an init script, which "Create[s] [a]
> list of required static device nodes for the current kernel". I have
> no idea why this is necessary, but kmod is a dependency of systemd,
> and the developers of both projects collaborate a lot  between them.
> 
> No other package in the tree uses an "openrc" USE flag (or at least
> they don't appear in /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc), except for
> plymouth, and that it's to install a plugin for OpenRC, not to install
> its OpenRC scripts.
> 
> So no package in the tree uses an "openrc" USE flag to install init
> scripts, except for one somewhat related to systemd, two forks and/or
> special handling of systemd, and systemd itself. In *ALL* the other
> packages in the tree, the OpenRC init scripts are installed
> unconditionally, as the systemd unit files are.
> 
> And that's how it should be.
> 
> Lastly, the ebuilds for udev/eudev should work out of the box in a
> sane configuration. You have been told several times, both by users
> and developers, that USE="-*" is not really supported; you broke your
> system by using it, you get to keep the pieces.
> 
> Gentoo is about choice (or so I keep hearing); that doesn't mean it
> shouldn't strive to have sane defaults that keep the majority happy:
> 
> http://blogs.gentoo.org/mgorny/2013/07/23/keeping-the-majority-happy/

So, I hope the package  maintainers will create or install systemd units
and init.d files so we can have the choice and not spend tons of time
maintaining the system -- it gets to the point of being rediculous after
a while.  Systemd sounds nice, but its frustrating because of this.

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Tanstaafl]

Top-posting because my question is about something in the linked threads...

In one comment was said the following:

>> Can I ask the systemd people to design a working solution for opting out?  I
>> can't support this initiative without such a solution and I would be happy
>> to work with the systemd people to reach it, ie I'll test.
>
> This already went before the Council, and the decision was that
> INSTALL_MASK IS the working solution for opting out.  If somebody
> wants to come up with a better one and propose it they're of course
> welcome to, but in the meantime, INSTALL_MASK is the official
> solution.

Where is this 'INSTALL_MASK' option for opting out of systemd completely 
documented? Googling only finds references to this discussion?

Thanks,

Charles

On 2013-07-30 6:40 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is going to be resistance. Two months ago there was a huge
> thread in gentoo-dev, because a package maintaner complained that his
> co-maintainer added a systemd unit to the package:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/85792
>
> In the end, the maintainer rage-quit:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2551
>
> However, this is the extreme behaviour: most developers (and rational
> people) agree to adding systemd unit files to all packages, and we
> have much better coverage now that some months ago.
>
> If users cooperate opening bugs adding systemd unit files (after
> testing them in their machines), the coverage is going to grow even
> faster.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 240 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:34:22 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> Where is this 'INSTALL_MASK' option for opting out of systemd
> completely documented?

man make.conf


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-31 8:22 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:34:22 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> Where is this 'INSTALL_MASK' option for opting out of systemd
>> completely documented?
>
> man make.conf

Thanks but... I didn't see one word mention of systemd.

So, how should this be used to 'opt out of systemd completely'?

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Yohan Pereira]

On 31/07/13 at 08:30am, Tanstaafl wrote:
> So, how should this be used to 'opt out of systemd completely'?

from main make.conf
"Use this variable if you want  to  selectively  prevent  certain
 files  from  being copied into your file system tree. .."

You can  use it to prevent ebuilds from installing unit files
or open-rc scripts from doing so (based on what you want to opt-out of).

-- 

- Yohan Pereira

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
                -- Mark Twain

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-31 8:41 AM, Yohan Pereira <yohan.pereira@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/07/13 at 08:30am, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> So, how should this be used to 'opt out of systemd completely'?
>
> from main make.conf
> "Use this variable if you want  to  selectively  prevent  certain
>   files  from  being copied into your file system tree. .."
>
> You can  use it to prevent ebuilds from installing unit files
> or open-rc scripts from doing so (based on what you want to opt-out of).

Well, no offense, but that is gobbledy-greek to non programmers.

I would have no idea *how* to 'prevent ebuilds from installing unit 
files...'.

If this really is 'the one true way' to 'totally opt out of systemd', 
then in my opinion there should be a very thorough example of *how* to 
'opt out of systemd' included in the man page.

Side-question...

I'm wondering if one of the reasons that the dev who was making such a 
big deal of this was mainly concerned about the 'slipper slope' factor, 
and saw some writing on the wall that the systemd devs were just playing 
nice just to get their foot in the door, then were going to pull some 
tricks to force changes that would eventually result in *everyone* (even 
those using eudev) to *have* to switch to systemd some time in the future?

Not saying this is how it is, but I'm more than a bit concerned about this.

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[»Q«]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:24:09 -0400
Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:

> On 2013-07-31 8:41 AM, Yohan Pereira <yohan.pereira@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 31/07/13 at 08:30am, Tanstaafl wrote:  
> >> So, how should this be used to 'opt out of systemd completely'?  
> >
> > from main make.conf
> > "Use this variable if you want  to  selectively  prevent  certain
> >   files  from  being copied into your file system tree. .."
> >
> > You can  use it to prevent ebuilds from installing unit files
> > or open-rc scripts from doing so (based on what you want to opt-out
> > of).  
> 
> Well, no offense, but that is gobbledy-greek to non programmers.
> 
> I would have no idea *how* to 'prevent ebuilds from installing unit 
> files...'.
> 
> If this really is 'the one true way' to 'totally opt out of systemd', 
> then in my opinion there should be a very thorough example of *how*
> to 'opt out of systemd' included in the man page.

I'd rather not see man make.conf cluttered with trivia, but maybe it
would be nice if there were a unified "choosing a system manager"
document which had recipes for avoiding the little files from other
systems.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:36:31 -0500, »Q« wrote:

> > If this really is 'the one true way' to 'totally opt out of systemd', 
> > then in my opinion there should be a very thorough example of *how*
> > to 'opt out of systemd' included in the man page.  
> 
> I'd rather not see man make.conf cluttered with trivia, but maybe it
> would be nice if there were a unified "choosing a system manager"
> document which had recipes for avoiding the little files from other
> systems.

I couldn't agree more. The make.conf man page should, and does, define
how a setting works. how it is used for specific packages should be
described in the documentation for those packages, or on the wiki.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Eat shit - 50 million flies can't be wrong
Use Microsoft . . . . .

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Walter Dnes]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:11:02PM +0530, Yohan Pereira wrote
> On 31/07/13 at 08:30am, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > So, how should this be used to 'opt out of systemd completely'?
> 
> from main make.conf
> "Use this variable if you want  to  selectively  prevent  certain
>  files  from  being copied into your file system tree. .."
> 
> You can  use it to prevent ebuilds from installing unit files
> or open-rc scripts from doing so (based on what you want to opt-out of).

  From the man page...
> INSTALL_MASK = [space delimited list of file names]

  I do not want to input umpteen files names, or even extensions.  The
man page says nothing about masking out directories.  Here's what I had
on my system a few minutes ago before executing
"rm -rf /usr/lib/systemd/"

[i660][waltdnes][/usr/lib] ll -ogR /usr/lib/systemd
/usr/lib/systemd:
total 56
drwxr-xr-x  3  4096 May 12 20:42 .
drwxr-xr-x 53 45056 Jul 28 03:18 ..
drwxr-xr-x  4  4096 Jun 14 02:45 system

/usr/lib/systemd/system:
total 44
drwxr-xr-x 4 4096 Jun 14 02:45 .
drwxr-xr-x 3 4096 May 12 20:42 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1  155 Jun 14 02:45 acpid.service
-rw-r--r-- 1  119 Jun 14 02:45 acpid.socket
-rw-r--r-- 1  220 Jun 14 02:45 alsa-restore.service
-rw-r--r-- 1  168 Jun 14 02:45 alsa-store.service
drwxr-xr-x 2 4096 Jun 14 02:45 basic.target.wants
drwxr-xr-x 2 4096 Jun 14 02:45 shutdown.target.wants
-rw-r--r-- 1  242 May 12 19:27 sshd.service
-rw-r--r-- 1  136 May 12 19:27 sshd.socket
-rw-r--r-- 1  176 May 12 19:27 sshd@.service

/usr/lib/systemd/system/basic.target.wants:
total 8
drwxr-xr-x 2 4096 Jun 14 02:45 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 4096 Jun 14 02:45 ..
lrwxrwxrwx 1   23 Jun 14 02:45 alsa-restore.service -> ../alsa-restore.service

/usr/lib/systemd/system/shutdown.target.wants:
total 8
drwxr-xr-x 2 4096 Jun 14 02:45 .
drwxr-xr-x 4 4096 Jun 14 02:45 ..
lrwxrwxrwx 1   21 Jun 14 02:45 alsa-store.service -> ../alsa-store.service

  Maybe I should simply make a wrapper script that throws in...
"rm -rf /usr/lib/systemd/" at the end of an emerge.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 06:24:17 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

> > You can  use it to prevent ebuilds from installing unit files
> > or open-rc scripts from doing so (based on what you want to opt-out
> > of).  
> 
>   From the man page...
> > INSTALL_MASK = [space delimited list of file names]  
> 
>   I do not want to input umpteen files names, or even extensions.  The
> man page says nothing about masking out directories.

"Everything is a file", nor does the man page say anything about not
using it to mask out directories. Bearing in mind that this is the means
chosen by the devs, it is reasonable to assume that it is practicable.

>   Maybe I should simply make a wrapper script that throws in...
> "rm -rf /usr/lib/systemd/" at the end of an emerge.

Or you could simply try INSTALL_MASK="/usr/lib/systemd/" in make.conf.
It's not like your computer is going to explode if it fails to mask the
service files.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Women live longer than men because they have so many clothes that they
wouldn't be caught dead in.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[»Q«]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:15:28 +0100
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> w
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 06:24:17 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> 
> > > You can  use it to prevent ebuilds from installing unit files
> > > or open-rc scripts from doing so (based on what you want to
> > > opt-out of).    
> > 
> >   From the man page...  
> > > INSTALL_MASK = [space delimited list of file names]    
> > 
> >   I do not want to input umpteen files names, or even extensions.
> > The man page says nothing about masking out directories.  
> 
> "Everything is a file", nor does the man page say anything about not
> using it to mask out directories. Bearing in mind that this is the
> means chosen by the devs, it is reasonable to assume that it is
> practicable.

Elsewhere, man make.conf uses "[space delimited list of files and/or
directories]", e.g. when describing CONFIG_PROTECT's value.  IMO it's
reasonable to expect the man page to be consistent. 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 823 bytes --]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:46:04 -0500, »Q« wrote:

> > "Everything is a file", nor does the man page say anything about not
> > using it to mask out directories. Bearing in mind that this is the
> > means chosen by the devs, it is reasonable to assume that it is
> > practicable.  
> 
> Elsewhere, man make.conf uses "[space delimited list of files and/or
> directories]", e.g. when describing CONFIG_PROTECT's value.  IMO it's
> reasonable to expect the man page to be consistent. 

Reasonable yes, but also a little optimistic considering the way it has
grown organically. However that doesn't change my main point , that one
could simply try it - which is how I determined that directories worked.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

We shall shortly be landing. Please return your stewardess to
the upright position.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2013-07-31 8:22 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:34:22 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> Where is this 'INSTALL_MASK' option for opting out of systemd
>>> completely documented?
>>
>>
>> man make.conf
>
>
> Thanks but... I didn't see one word mention of systemd.
>
> So, how should this be used to 'opt out of systemd completely'?

If you don't use the systemd USE flag (and never install anything that
depends on systemd), you will not get systemd installed, but many
packages will install systemd unit files in /urs/lib/systemd/system.
This unit files are little non-executable files which do nothing in
your system, but some people feel really strongly about having
anything in their machines with *systemd* in its path. If you want to
exorcise those unit files, add /usr/lib/systemd/system to
INSTALL_MASK.

It's the exact same situation with OpenRC: those of us who install
systemd don't want nor need the files in /etc/init.d, but they get
installed anyway. If we want to exorcise OpenRC init scripts from our
systems, we need to add /etc/init.d to INSTALL_MASK.

For the record, I now think it's a waste of time trying to stop the
installation of tiny files that basically do nothing, either in
/usr/lib/systemd/system or in /etc/init.d, but you have the option if
you so desire.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-31 11:20 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't use the systemd USE flag (and never install anything that
> depends on systemd), you will not get systemd installed, but many
> packages will install systemd unit files in /urs/lib/systemd/system.
> This unit files are little non-executable files which do nothing in
> your system, but some people feel really strongly about having
> anything in their machines with *systemd* in its path. If you want to
> exorcise those unit files, add /usr/lib/systemd/system to
> INSTALL_MASK.

Ok, thanks Canek... but my last question remains... if this really is 
going to be the only and one true way to opt out of systemd, shouldn't 
this be well documented in the man page, as opposed to just generic 
references to masking 'files'...?

> It's the exact same situation with OpenRC: those of us who install
> systemd don't want nor need the files in /etc/init.d, but they get
> installed anyway. If we want to exorcise OpenRC init scripts from our
> systems, we need to add /etc/init.d to INSTALL_MASK.

And so *both* should be fully documented in the man page...

> For the record, I now think it's a waste of time trying to stop the
> installation of tiny files that basically do nothing, either in
> /usr/lib/systemd/system or in /etc/init.d, but you have the option if
> you so desire.

Ok, and thanks again...

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 31/07/13 18:26, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-31 11:20 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you don't use the systemd USE flag (and never install anything that
>> depends on systemd), you will not get systemd installed, but many
>> packages will install systemd unit files in /urs/lib/systemd/system.
>> This unit files are little non-executable files which do nothing in
>> your system, but some people feel really strongly about having
>> anything in their machines with *systemd* in its path. If you want to
>> exorcise those unit files, add /usr/lib/systemd/system to
>> INSTALL_MASK.
>
> Ok, thanks Canek... but my last question remains... if this really is
> going to be the only and one true way to opt out of systemd, shouldn't
> this be well documented in the man page, as opposed to just generic
> references to masking 'files'...?

Actually, this isn't how you opt out of systemd. You do that by having 
"-systemd" in your USE flags. Just because the unit files are present 
doesn't mean you're now using systemd.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2013-07-31 11:20 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you don't use the systemd USE flag (and never install anything that
>> depends on systemd), you will not get systemd installed, but many
>> packages will install systemd unit files in /urs/lib/systemd/system.
>> This unit files are little non-executable files which do nothing in
>> your system, but some people feel really strongly about having
>> anything in their machines with *systemd* in its path. If you want to
>> exorcise those unit files, add /usr/lib/systemd/system to
>> INSTALL_MASK.
>
>
> Ok, thanks Canek... but my last question remains... if this really is going
> to be the only and one true way to opt out of systemd, shouldn't this be
> well documented in the man page, as opposed to just generic references to
> masking 'files'...?

No, because the *exact same* situation occurs for Bash completion
scripts... and logrotate scripts... and cron jobs... and...

The devs decided (and I agree with them) that the important thing is
to cover the necessities of the majority of users and to have
reasonable default settings. Therefore, having USE flags for
bash_complete, and logrotate, and crond, and systemd, and OpenRC, and
whatever else you want to throw in the mix is overkill and a
maintenance nightmare. Not to mention that they will require a full
rebuild every time you changed one of those flags. And the packages
(in general) will not care about those tiny files; they will work fine
with all of them installed, no matter if you don't use Bash
completion, nor logrotate, nor crond, nor systemd nor OpenRC.

So, those files are installed unconditionally. And that's the smart
thing to do, since most users will not even care about any of them.

There is no need to document nothing special about any of them
(bash_complete, logrotate, crond, systemd, OpenRC, etc.), since that
option is for really special cases (think embedded devices with really
small disk space), or for really picky users (like myself some weeks
ago, before I reached the conclusion that masking files in /etc/init.d
is not worth it).

>> It's the exact same situation with OpenRC: those of us who install
>> systemd don't want nor need the files in /etc/init.d, but they get
>> installed anyway. If we want to exorcise OpenRC init scripts from our
>> systems, we need to add /etc/init.d to INSTALL_MASK.
>
>
> And so *both* should be fully documented in the man page...

No, see above.

>> For the record, I now think it's a waste of time trying to stop the
>> installation of tiny files that basically do nothing, either in
>> /usr/lib/systemd/system or in /etc/init.d, but you have the option if
>> you so desire.
>
>
> Ok, and thanks again...

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Alan McKinnon]

On 31/07/2013 17:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> No, because the *exact same* situation occurs for Bash completion
> scripts... and logrotate scripts... and cron jobs... and...
> 
> The devs decided (and I agree with them) that the important thing is
> to cover the necessities of the majority of users and to have
> reasonable default settings. Therefore, having USE flags for
> bash_complete, and logrotate, and crond, and systemd, and OpenRC, and
> whatever else you want to throw in the mix is overkill and a
> maintenance nightmare. Not to mention that they will require a full
> rebuild every time you changed one of those flags. And the packages
> (in general) will not care about those tiny files; they will work fine
> with all of them installed, no matter if you don't use Bash
> completion, nor logrotate, nor crond, nor systemd nor OpenRC.
> 
> So, those files are installed unconditionally. And that's the smart
> thing to do, since most users will not even care about any of them.


Folk will get MUCH larger savings if they mask html help/doc files from
being installed. Those things get to be huge.

Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
in ways they really should be keeping private.

Unless the system is embedded in which case a lot more than units are
going to be masked out


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ...
> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
> in ways they really should be keeping private.

Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Stroller
<stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> ...
>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>
> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.

If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
functions.sh) don't actually do nothing. If you use OpenRC, all the
files installed in /urs/lib/systemd/system don't actually do nothing.

Whichever you use (OpenRC or systemd), you will have files in both
locations (actually, a bunch of them), and therefore one of those
locations will have files that don't actually do nothing.

Unless you use INSTALL_MASK, which is of course what this is all about.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Bruce Hill]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:09:03PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >
> > Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
> 
> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing. If you use OpenRC, all the
> files installed in /urs/lib/systemd/system don't actually do nothing.
> 
> Whichever you use (OpenRC or systemd), you will have files in both
> locations (actually, a bunch of them), and therefore one of those
> locations will have files that don't actually do nothing.
> 
> Unless you use INSTALL_MASK, which is of course what this is all about.
> 
> Regards.
> -- 
> Canek Peláez Valdés
> Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

In English "don't actually do nothing" means "do something"; i.e. "don't
actually do anything" != "don't actually do nothing".
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Bruce Hill
<daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:09:03PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
>>
>> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
>> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing. If you use OpenRC, all the
>> files installed in /urs/lib/systemd/system don't actually do nothing.
>>
>> Whichever you use (OpenRC or systemd), you will have files in both
>> locations (actually, a bunch of them), and therefore one of those
>> locations will have files that don't actually do nothing.
>>
>> Unless you use INSTALL_MASK, which is of course what this is all about.
>>
>> Regards.
>> --
>> Canek Peláez Valdés
>> Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
>> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
>
> In English "don't actually do nothing" means "do something"; i.e. "don't
> actually do anything" != "don't actually do nothing".

I was using (on purpose) the exact same sentence that Stroller used. I
believe he's German; I'm Mexican.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 19:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> ...
>>> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
>>> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing. 
>> 
>> In English "don't actually do nothing" means "do something"; i.e. "don't
>> actually do anything" != "don't actually do nothing".
> 
> I was using (on purpose) the exact same sentence that Stroller used. I
> believe he's German; I'm Mexican.

I'm English.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Stroller
<stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 31 July 2013, at 19:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
>>>> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing.
>>>
>>> In English "don't actually do nothing" means "do something"; i.e. "don't
>>> actually do anything" != "don't actually do nothing".
>>
>> I was using (on purpose) the exact same sentence that Stroller used. I
>> believe he's German; I'm Mexican.
>
> I'm English.

Oh, sorry; I thought I saw your email host ending with ".de".

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 20:03, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Stroller
> <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> On 31 July 2013, at 19:24, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
>>>>> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing.
>>>> 
>>>> In English "don't actually do nothing" means "do something"; i.e. "don't
>>>> actually do anything" != "don't actually do nothing".
>>> 
>>> I was using (on purpose) the exact same sentence that Stroller used. I
>>> believe he's German; I'm Mexican.
>> 
>> I'm English.
> 
> Oh, sorry; I thought I saw your email host ending with ".de".

It's no problem. 

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Bruce Hill]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:24:29PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Bruce Hill
> <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:09:03PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
> >>
> >> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
> >> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing. If you use OpenRC, all the
> >> files installed in /urs/lib/systemd/system don't actually do nothing.
> >>
> >> Whichever you use (OpenRC or systemd), you will have files in both
> >> locations (actually, a bunch of them), and therefore one of those
> >> locations will have files that don't actually do nothing.
> >>
> >> Unless you use INSTALL_MASK, which is of course what this is all about.
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >> --
> >> Canek Peláez Valdés
> >> Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
> >> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
> >
> > In English "don't actually do nothing" means "do something"; i.e. "don't
> > actually do anything" != "don't actually do nothing".
> 
> I was using (on purpose) the exact same sentence that Stroller used. I
> believe he's German; I'm Mexican.

Well, "don't actually do anything" is proper English; "don't actually do
nothing" is not.
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Grant Edwards]

On 2013-07-31, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:09:03PM -0500, Canek Pel?ez Vald?s wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly
>>> some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be
>>> files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
>> 
>> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
>> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing. If you use OpenRC, all the
>> files installed in /urs/lib/systemd/system don't actually do nothing.
>> 
>> Whichever you use (OpenRC or systemd), you will have files in both
>> locations (actually, a bunch of them), and therefore one of those
>> locations will have files that don't actually do nothing.
>> 
>> Unless you use INSTALL_MASK, which is of course what this is all about.

> In English "don't actually do nothing" means "do something"; i.e. "don't
> actually do anything" != "don't actually do nothing".

In standard, formal English, that's correct.

However, in some English dialects, a double-negatve does not equate to
a positive.  A double negative is simply a stronger negative.  For
example, "don't do nothing" is a stronger, more emphatic version of
"don't do anything".  Languages like that have "negative concord". 
Old and Middle English were that way, and some modern dialects of
English are that way.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Either CONFESS now or
                                  at               we go to "PEOPLE'S COURT"!!
                              gmail.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Bruce Hill]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:31:36PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
> In standard, formal English, that's correct.
> 
> However, in some English dialects, a double-negatve does not equate to
> a positive.  A double negative is simply a stronger negative.  For
> example, "don't do nothing" is a stronger, more emphatic version of
> "don't do anything".  Languages like that have "negative concord". 
> Old and Middle English were that way, and some modern dialects of
> English are that way.

This is incorrect -- "don't do nothing", do not _do_nothing_ means "do _something_", and "don't do
anything" means just what it says, "Do not do _anything_".
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 19:09, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Stroller
> <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>> 
>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
> 
> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing.

Right, which is a bit freakin' odd, because on most every previous distro and other *nix system, that's where the system administrator goes to start and stop services. 

If they're not used, in this case, I don't think they should be installed.

/etc/init.d is wholly different from /usr/share/package-name/examples 

There are many other directories on the system where it's no problem to have some idle, unused, "wasted" files, but /etc/init.d has long been an important directory. 

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Stroller
<stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 31 July 2013, at 19:09, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Stroller
>> <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>>>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>>>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>>>
>>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
>>
>> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
>> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing.
>
> Right, which is a bit freakin' odd, because on most every previous distro and other *nix system, that's where the system administrator goes to start and stop services.
>
> If they're not used, in this case, I don't think they should be installed.
>
> /etc/init.d is wholly different from /usr/share/package-name/examples
>
> There are many other directories on the system where it's no problem to have some idle, unused, "wasted" files, but /etc/init.d has long been an important directory.

That was one of the reasons I started the gentoo-systemd-only overlay;
if you used systemd, and tried to run "/etc/init.d/whatever start",
the results would vary from "annoying" to "catastrophic".

Nowadays you get the following warning:

 * You are attempting to run an openrc service on a
 * system which openrc did not boot.
 * You may be inside a chroot or you may have used
 * another initialization system to boot this system.
 * In this situation, you will get unpredictable results!
 * If you really want to do this, issue the following command:
 * touch /run/openrc/softlevel

So it's pretty harmless. I believe the same applies for the files in
/etc/init.d (or /usr/lib/systemd/system) that for the files in
/etc/cron.daily, or /etc/bash_completion.d.

They should be installed unconditionally. If you don't like it,
INSTALL_MASK'd them.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 20:09, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> … if you used systemd, and tried to run "/etc/init.d/whatever start",
> … 
> Nowadays you get the following warning:
> 
> * You are attempting to run an openrc service on a
> * system which openrc did not boot.
> *...
> 
> So it's pretty harmless. 

Oh, nice. That's very acceptable, then - a clean migration path.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Alan McKinnon]

On 31/07/2013 20:54, Stroller wrote:
> 
> On 31 July 2013, at 19:09, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Stroller
>> <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>>>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>>>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>>>
>>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
>>
>> If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
>> functions.sh) don't actually do nothing.
> 
> Right, which is a bit freakin' odd, because on most every previous distro and other *nix system, that's where the system administrator goes to start and stop services. 
> 
> If they're not used, in this case, I don't think they should be installed.
> 
> /etc/init.d is wholly different from /usr/share/package-name/examples 
> 
> There are many other directories on the system where it's no problem to have some idle, unused, "wasted" files, but /etc/init.d has long been an important directory. 

True, but this one is an oddity. The ebuild for the daemon installs
those files, and the ebuild doesn't know when you change your mind about
a service manager. If you omitted the init scripts, you get to remerge
all your daemon packages just to get them. Yuck. And that's just crappy
design.

You *could* have them stored in /usr/share somewhere and "eselect
service-manager" copies them around when changes are made, but that's
just extra brittle layers of complexity for no good reason.

A much better solution is something like a
"service <daemon> start|stop|reload" wrapper
which RH/Fedora/Ubuntu et al have been doing for like ages. It's not
really any different to using rc-update instead of fiddling with classic
SysV init symlinks.

A presumably the sysadmin knows what service manager he is using so
knows whether to use classic init scripts or not.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 20:28, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> 
>> Right, which is a bit freakin' odd, because on most every previous distro and other *nix system, that's where the system administrator goes to start and stop services. 
>> 
>> If they're not used, in this case, I don't think they should be installed.
>> 
>> /etc/init.d is wholly different from /usr/share/package-name/examples 
>> 
>> There are many other directories on the system where it's no problem to have some idle, unused, "wasted" files, but /etc/init.d has long been an important directory. 
> 
> True, but this one is an oddity. The ebuild for the daemon installs
> those files, and the ebuild doesn't know when you change your mind about
> a service manager. If you omitted the init scripts, you get to remerge
> all your daemon packages just to get them. Yuck.

In general, and personally, I would regard that as an acceptable compromise, for a migration that only needs to be carried out once.

Each month we might upgrade numerous packages on our Gentoo systems, I don't think it's that ugly to reinstall a few packages just once for something major like this.

On a binary distro this doesn't arise because they say "we'll be sticking with init.d throughout 10.x, and with 11.0 we'll start using systemd".

In Gentoo my objections are rendered moot by Canek's explanation that systemd replaces the init.d function helpers with a message that says "hey, init.d isn't used by this system", so that those scripts exit gracefully. I find this quite an elegant migration path. 

Stroller. 

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1559 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:54:54 +0100, Stroller wrote:

> > If you use systemd, all the files installed in /etc/init.d (except
> > functions.sh) don't actually do nothing.  
> 
> Right, which is a bit freakin' odd, because on most every previous
> distro and other *nix system, that's where the system administrator
> goes to start and stop services. 

And that is why it is possible to have systemd and openrc installed at
the same time, because they keep their service files in completely
different locations.

> If they're not used, in this case, I don't think they should be
> installed.

Which is where this thread started, should every daemon package have a
couple of extra USE flags just to decide which, or both, of the service
manager files to install. Then you'd probably need some eclass code to
determine that you have at least one of those USE flags enabled, and
maybe some code to forbid both on packages that don't work with both
service managers installed.

Or you could allow each server's ebuild to install one redundant small
file, bearing in mind that a different file may be redundant for the next
user.

So let the ebuild install both files and those of use with excessive OCD
tendencies, or very limited storage, can use INSTALL_MASK t exclude not
only the redundant service files but a lot more besides.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Octal: (n.) a base-8 counting system designed so that one hand may count
upon the fingers of the other. Thumbs are not used, and the index finger
is reserved for the 'carry.'

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Alan McKinnon]

On 31/07/2013 19:56, Stroller wrote:
> 
> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> ...
>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
> 
> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
> 
> Stroller.
> 
> 

You are understanding it wrong. The scene being worked towards is:

ebuilds for services will install openrc scripts in /etc/init.d
ebuilds for services will install unit files somewhere else.
Only one of those sets of teeny weeny files can be used at a time, the
set in user depends on the service manager.

There's an idea floating around that openrc could use systemd unit files
but it's still just an idea. If it becomes more than an idea, the files
in /etc/init.d may or may not be dispensed with. Either way it doesn't
matter. Unit files are unlikely to number more than 100 total, and are
likely to be smaller than 1 fs allocation unit in size.

bash's man page is considerably larger than all that all by itself.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/07/2013 19:56, Stroller wrote:
>>
>> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>>
>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
>>
>> Stroller.
>>
>>
>
> You are understanding it wrong. The scene being worked towards is:
>
> ebuilds for services will install openrc scripts in /etc/init.d
> ebuilds for services will install unit files somewhere else.
> Only one of those sets of teeny weeny files can be used at a time, the
> set in user depends on the service manager.
>
> There's an idea floating around that openrc could use systemd unit files
> but it's still just an idea. If it becomes more than an idea, the files
> in /etc/init.d may or may not be dispensed with. Either way it doesn't
> matter. Unit files are unlikely to number more than 100 total, and are
> likely to be smaller than 1 fs allocation unit in size.

160 files in my laptop, using 652K, 122 files in a LAMP server, using 492K.

> bash's man page is considerably larger than all that all by itself.

bash's man page is 62K in my laptop (compressed with bzip2), 277K uncompressed.

So, not quite exactly like you say, but the point remains true. The
man pages in my laptop use more than 20 times the space used in
/usr/lib/systemd (and that includes binaries like systemd itself and
systemd-udev).

acero ~ # du -sh /usr/share/man
82M /usr/share/man
acero ~ # du -sh /usr/lib/systemd/
3.6M /usr/lib/systemd/

And /usr/share/doc is 2.5G in my laptop.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31/07/2013 19:56, Stroller wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>>>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>>>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>>>
>>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
>>>
>>> Stroller.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You are understanding it wrong. The scene being worked towards is:
>>
>> ebuilds for services will install openrc scripts in /etc/init.d
>> ebuilds for services will install unit files somewhere else.
>> Only one of those sets of teeny weeny files can be used at a time, the
>> set in user depends on the service manager.
>>
>> There's an idea floating around that openrc could use systemd unit files
>> but it's still just an idea. If it becomes more than an idea, the files
>> in /etc/init.d may or may not be dispensed with. Either way it doesn't
>> matter. Unit files are unlikely to number more than 100 total, and are
>> likely to be smaller than 1 fs allocation unit in size.
>
> 160 files in my laptop, using 652K, 122 files in a LAMP server, using 492K.
>
>> bash's man page is considerably larger than all that all by itself.
>
> bash's man page is 62K in my laptop (compressed with bzip2), 277K uncompressed.
>
> So, not quite exactly like you say, but the point remains true. The
> man pages in my laptop use more than 20 times the space used in
> /usr/lib/systemd (and that includes binaries like systemd itself and
> systemd-udev).

Oh, I just noticed that systemd-udev is a link to /sbin/udev. So add
205K more for it.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Bruce Hill]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 01:22:21PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> 
> acero ~ # du -sh /usr/share/man
> 82M /usr/share/man
> acero ~ # du -sh /usr/lib/systemd/
> 3.6M /usr/lib/systemd/
> 
> And /usr/share/doc is 2.5G in my laptop.

That's due to USE=doc rather than USE=-doc
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 19:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> On 31/07/2013 19:56, Stroller wrote:
>> 
>> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>> 
>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
> 
> You are understanding it wrong. 

No. According to Canek, I'm not.

> Only one of those sets of teeny weeny files can be used at a time, 


Heck! Even according to yourself, in the same email, I'm not understanding it wrong!


I've asked you this before - would you stop wrongly telling people they're wrong, please?

Would you please just stop and think "could it be me who is misunderstanding this?"

Could you please just rephrase yourself "I think you may be mistaken". 

Whenever it is *you* who is mistaken, you are always assertively and authoritatively so.

This makes it harder for people to question or challenge you, and it ensures those you misadvise will waste their time with greater determination. "Well, Alan knows what he's on about, and he said this definitely - there was no doubt in his statement". 

Not only that, it's just plain annoying to be told one is wrong when one is not. 

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Alan McKinnon]

On 31/07/2013 20:54, Stroller wrote:
> 
> On 31 July 2013, at 19:09, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
>> On 31/07/2013 19:56, Stroller wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 July 2013, at 18:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Whinging about systemd binaries being installed is valid, but whinging
>>>> about some data files is not. Anyone who does is letting their OCD show
>>>> in ways they really should be keeping private.
>>>
>>> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.
>>
>> You are understanding it wrong. 
> 
> No. According to Canek, I'm not.
> 
>> Only one of those sets of teeny weeny files can be used at a time, 
> 
> 
> Heck! Even according to yourself, in the same email, I'm not understanding it wrong!
> 
> 
> I've asked you this before - would you stop wrongly telling people they're wrong, please?
> 
> Would you please just stop and think "could it be me who is misunderstanding this?"
> 
> Could you please just rephrase yourself "I think you may be mistaken". 
> 
> Whenever it is *you* who is mistaken, you are always assertively and authoritatively so.
> 
> This makes it harder for people to question or challenge you, and it ensures those you misadvise will waste their time with greater determination. "Well, Alan knows what he's on about, and he said this definitely - there was no doubt in his statement". 
> 
> Not only that, it's just plain annoying to be told one is wrong when one is not. 
> 
> Stroller.
> 
> 


Sure, I can do that.

I read "that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't
actually do anything" different to what you intended. English can be
very ambiguous.

If we take "You are understanding it wrong." out of my mail is the rest OK?




-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 20:38, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> ...
>> Heck! Even according to yourself, in the same email, I'm not understanding it wrong!
>> 
>> 
>> I've asked you this before - would you stop wrongly telling people they're wrong, please?
>> 
>> Would you please just stop and think "could it be me who is misunderstanding this?"
>> 
>> Could you please just rephrase yourself "I think you may be mistaken". 
>> 
>> Whenever it is *you* who is mistaken, you are always assertively and authoritatively so.
>> 
>> This makes it harder for people to question or challenge you, and it ensures those you misadvise will waste their time with greater determination. "Well, Alan knows what he's on about, and he said this definitely - there was no doubt in his statement". 
>> 
>> Not only that, it's just plain annoying to be told one is wrong when one is not. 
> 
> 
> Sure, I can do that.
> 
> I read "that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't
> actually do anything" different to what you intended. English can be
> very ambiguous.
> 
> If we take "You are understanding it wrong." out of my mail is the rest OK?

The problem with the rest of that message was that, although accurate, it stemmed from the assumption that someone else must have misunderstood. 

A similar explanation had already been given in this thread - I'd read that, and that's why I was responding.

Had you instead asked "what do you mean?" or "why does that bother you?" you would have given me the opportunity to clarify.

Had I shown a misunderstanding upon further elaboration, that would been your opportunity to demonstrate your wisdom.

Everyone here respects your knowledge and experience, it just feels like you're in such a rush to be helpful that you assume someone else must've screwed up. 

Stroller. 

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Alan McKinnon]

On 31/07/2013 23:22, Stroller wrote:
> 
> On 31 July 2013, at 20:38, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Heck! Even according to yourself, in the same email, I'm not understanding it wrong!
>>>
>>>
>>> I've asked you this before - would you stop wrongly telling people they're wrong, please?
>>>
>>> Would you please just stop and think "could it be me who is misunderstanding this?"
>>>
>>> Could you please just rephrase yourself "I think you may be mistaken". 
>>>
>>> Whenever it is *you* who is mistaken, you are always assertively and authoritatively so.
>>>
>>> This makes it harder for people to question or challenge you, and it ensures those you misadvise will waste their time with greater determination. "Well, Alan knows what he's on about, and he said this definitely - there was no doubt in his statement". 
>>>
>>> Not only that, it's just plain annoying to be told one is wrong when one is not. 
>>
>>
>> Sure, I can do that.
>>
>> I read "that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't
>> actually do anything" different to what you intended. English can be
>> very ambiguous.
>>
>> If we take "You are understanding it wrong." out of my mail is the rest OK?
> 
> The problem with the rest of that message was that, although accurate, it stemmed from the assumption that someone else must have misunderstood. 
> 
> A similar explanation had already been given in this thread - I'd read that, and that's why I was responding.
> 
> Had you instead asked "what do you mean?" or "why does that bother you?" you would have given me the opportunity to clarify.
> 
> Had I shown a misunderstanding upon further elaboration, that would been your opportunity to demonstrate your wisdom.
> 
> Everyone here respects your knowledge and experience, it just feels like you're in such a rush to be helpful that you assume someone else must've screwed up. 


This might sound a bit weird, but I type like I speak. I never developed
a distinct writing style different from a spoken style, and people who
know me in person comment on it often. And I don't proof-read enough
either. My bad.


I don't have any of these problems with face-to-face conversation, but
it doesn't work too good over email. I'm not unaware of how I probably
come across, and I'm working on it. Admittedly I'm not having a huge
amount of success just yet, but I am working on it. Several smart folk
tell me it takes time.

Are we OK on this for now, or is there more to discuss?


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2013, at 22:43, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ...
> Are we OK on this for now, or is there more to discuss?

Yes, that's great. I'm glad we can be open and honest when we've got these kinds of problems. 

On other occasions I've worried that you might have driven away someone who was seeking help here, but I've felt like it wasn't my place to intervene. 

The only advice I can perhaps give you is to read the question twice and hesitate before replying. If you wait an hour before hitting reply, maybe you'll be less likely to do so with your initial certainty.  

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Alan McKinnon]

On 01/08/2013 00:25, Stroller wrote:
> 
> On 31 July 2013, at 22:43, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> ...
>> Are we OK on this for now, or is there more to discuss?
> 
> Yes, that's great. I'm glad we can be open and honest when we've got these kinds of problems. 
> 
> On other occasions I've worried that you might have driven away someone who was seeking help here, but I've felt like it wasn't my place to intervene. 
> 
> The only advice I can perhaps give you is to read the question twice and hesitate before replying. If you wait an hour before hitting reply, maybe you'll be less likely to do so with your initial certainty.  


You'll notice I post significantly less in the last 18 months or so.
Most of that is when I did think twice, some still slips through though.

Oh well. Shit happens I suppose I get to just deal with it :-)


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[walt]

On 07/31/2013 11:09 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> There's an idea floating around that openrc could use systemd unit files
> but it's still just an idea.

I must have crossed the line into grumpy-old-man-hood.  That idea is insane.

Someone is willing to re-write udev to use Lennart's config files but not
Lennart's systemd binary?  Go figure.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Yohan Pereira]

On 31/07/13 at 06:56pm, Stroller wrote:
> Hmmmn, it's a bit freaking weird - if I'm understanding correctly some of the statements made here about systemd - that there will be files installed to /etc/init.d/ that don't actually do anything.

If your refering to what I think your refering to then I think Canek was
talking about packages installing systemd unit files as well ask openrc
init scripts regardless of the init system in use. There fore systemd
users will have scripts in init.d which they do not use and vice versa.
 

-- 

- Yohan Pereira

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
                -- Mark Twain

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Yohan Pereira]

On 31/07/13 at 11:26am, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-31 11:20 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you don't use the systemd USE flag (and never install anything that
> > depends on systemd), you will not get systemd installed, but many
> > packages will install systemd unit files in /urs/lib/systemd/system.
> > This unit files are little non-executable files which do nothing in
> > your system, but some people feel really strongly about having
> > anything in their machines with *systemd* in its path. If you want to
> > exorcise those unit files, add /usr/lib/systemd/system to
> > INSTALL_MASK.
> 
> Ok, thanks Canek... but my last question remains... if this really is 
> going to be the only and one true way to opt out of systemd, shouldn't 
> this be well documented in the man page, as opposed to just generic 
> references to masking 'files'...?

The "one true way" is to set -systemd in your useflags. However anything
that hard depends on systemd will pull it in like AFAIR gnome. Trying to
opt-out of systemd in these cases is not supported and probably not
trivial.

The install_mask is just for preventing certain tiny files that certain
packages install that let them be used by a init sytstem like the
scripts in init.d in the case of openrc and unit files in the case of 
systemd. ALl this will do is help you save few kbs of disk space. It
wont help you get rid of systemd in cases where its required like in the
case of gnome.

-- 

- Yohan Pereira

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
                -- Mark Twain

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-31 11:45 AM, Yohan Pereira <yohan.pereira@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "one true way" is to set -systemd in your useflags. However anything
> that hard depends on systemd will pull it in like AFAIR gnome. Trying to
> opt-out of systemd in these cases is not supported and probably not
> trivial.

Ok, I misread some things in those discussions (was reading quickly)...

I could have sworn I saw mention a -systemd USE flag was explicitly 
rejected by the devs... now I see it was only a USE flag for the 
inclusion of the unit files.

Sorry for the noise...

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 07/31/2013 11:20 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> 
> For the record, I now think it's a waste of time trying to stop the
> installation of tiny files that basically do nothing, either in
> /usr/lib/systemd/system or in /etc/init.d, but you have the option if
> you so desire.

The nice thing about the systemd service files is that they're
distribution independent. That means the service file can go upstream,
and the daemon's authors can make sure that it's correct. No more
duplication of effort for each distro maintainer.

Of course, you don't get that benefit unless you use systemd. But it's
tempting, right? So there's been some talk about getting openrc,
upstart, etc. to parse the systemd service files. That way, we'd get the
benefit without having to run systemd.

Should that dream ever become reality, you may one day get an unexpected
surprise if you INSTALL_MASK the service files. In any case, masking
them would be just one more make.conf setting you have to worry about.
If it makes the situation more palatable, note that the service files
come from the package authors, and not from the systemd people.

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Pavel Volkov <negaipub@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 28 July 2013 03:22:02 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> William Hubbs closed bug #409385[1] as fixed, introducing
>> virtual/service-manager and adding it to the @system set, and dropping
>> OpenRC from baselayout's post dependencies.
>>
>> Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
>> systemd, with no OpenRC installed.
>
> Really? Bug 373219 is still open.

Yeah, and as I said in my original mail

"Also, without OpenRC we don't have /etc/init.d/functions.sh , but you
can use the alternatives provided in my overlay or in bug #373219[3].
I'm pretty sure someone will close that bug pretty soon."

Basically, download elog-functions.sh (or any other alternative
provided in the bug, there are several), and put it in
/etc/init.d/functions.sh.

Problem solved, or at least until someone closes 373219.

Besides, /etc/init.d/functions.sh only really affects you when using
python-updater, gcc-config, or similar tools.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] gentoo-systemd-only deprecation

[Poncho]

On 28.07.2013 10:22, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> William Hubbs closed bug #409385[1] as fixed, introducing
> virtual/service-manager and adding it to the @system set, and dropping
> OpenRC from baselayout's post dependencies.
> 
> Therefore, as of today, anyone can have a Gentoo machine with only
> systemd, with no OpenRC installed. Since that was the raison d'être of
> the gentoo-systemd-only overlay[2], I'm deprecating it soon.
> 
> If you install dracut you will also pull sysvinit (it's needed for
> killall5, IIRC), 

Seems like the bin/pidof -> ../sbin/killall5 dependency is removed in
git:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/boot/dracut/dracut.git/commit/?id=45ef8eb7234dbad60e39ce1e7791c8e9ad7d920b

and installing baselayout (instead of
> systemd-baselayout) will make orphans of some systemd configuration
> files (like /etc/vconsole.conf and /etc/machine-info); but I consider
> those only minor problems, and I would strongly recommend to *anyone*
> using my gentoo-systemd-only overlay to drop it and use the official
> mechanism in the tree to install only systemd, replacing completely
> OpenRC.
> 
> Also, without OpenRC we don't have /etc/init.d/functions.sh , but you
> can use the alternatives provided in my overlay or in bug #373219[3].
> I'm pretty sure someone will close that bug pretty soon.
> 
> Basically, systemd is now a first class citizen in Gentoo (on par with
> OpenRC), and therefore there is no need at all for using my overlay.
> Thanks to all the people who helped me with pull requests and
> comments; the deprecation of the overlay is great news, since now it's
> officially possible in Gentoo to ditch OpenRC and switch completely to
> systemd.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409385
> [2] https://github.com/canek-pelaez/gentoo-systemd-only
> [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219
>