On Jan 19, 2011 7:13 PM, "Ng Oon-Ee" <ngoonee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:22 -0600, Thomas Dziedzic wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Le mercredi 19 janvier 2011 16:02:52, C Anthony Risinger a écrit : > > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxxx > > > > wrote: > > >> > Any ideas when will Arch switch to systemd based booting system ? > > >> > > >> oh, and the last couple pages in the forum sound promising in regards > > >> to arch specific unit files, though i'd have to look closer as i > > >> haven't had a chance to try systemd myself for some time. > > >> > > >> any comments from someone out there currently using systemd and the > > >> arch unit files from AUR? > > >> > > >> C Anthony > > > > > > Let me resume: > > > > > > Currently there is no plan and no date. > > > > > > ++ > > > > > > > > > > I'm not convinced systemd is better than the current initscripts in > > its current state. I've seen problems from people using systemd in the > > forums and in other sources. You should work on improving systemd on > > arch and getting everything documented if you really do like it. > > +1 > > I've been observing the systemd thread, seems really interesting > (conceptually and practically). Will have to try it someday, when I've > graduated and the cost of an unbootable system becomes less heavy =) > I will likely put time into this when possible, but that's not very soon; I have another Arch related project with btrfs that I've delayed too long. As for being better... I think the links provided to Lennart's blog explain that fairly well. 200 line bash scripts become 15 line service files. I was hoping to hear from someone currently using/trying the systemd related AUR packages, because some of the posts in the forum are very positive, and allude to good Arch specific support/experiences. ... so, anyone out there to support or refute this observation (with actual experience ...) C Anthony [mobile]
