-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2012 04:04 PM, Karol Babioch wrote: > Am 22.07.2012 22:59, schrieb David C. Rankin: >> > If the systemd benefits outweigh the benefits of the current init and the >> > time-cost to the community to undergo the change is small, then it is worth >> > doing. > Once again: The proposed change is not about systemd. The maintainer(s) > plan to support both the classic initscripts as well as systemd (see > here [1]). So don't mix these things here. For now we are talking about > the split up of "rc.conf". > > [1] > https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2012-April/022803.html Well, if there is a split needed to support systemd, that's fine as long as rc.conf remains for those that don't go off chasing it. Further, if the 3 files you are taking about contain information that is used in rc.conf, why not work this 'integration' to a point where rc.conf simply sources the info it needs from the systemd files. Not needed, but if it makes sense long term. As long as we are talking about either rc.conf or hostname, vconsole.conf, and locale.conf, if the files are reasonably commented so that a user who knows rc.conf can find his way though the other three for a systemd setup, then there is no issue. The files are small, and easy to deal with. Like I said, if the move is basically transparent to the community and systemd has some 'must have' feature that everyone will use, then a migration there is a good way to then be able to compare and contrast user experience with both. I can't see a cleaner way than a single rc.conf, but I don't have objection to looking at 3 instead of one. - -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlAM2yoACgkQZMpuZ8Cyrci/lQCdFrciWLpUMiRZ4OfPPO4wy2wf fxMAnjNy6+83ysEvDaVw9ELp/kdBrGLw =/8s5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
