On 08/14/2012 09:25 AM, Paul Gideon Dann wrote:
On Tuesday 14 Aug 2012 09:12:30 Baho Utot wrote:
I think Arch was good back in the day.
Now not so good.
This sounds a bit inflammatory and over-generalised. Presumably what you don't
like about Arch now is the fact that it will potentially change its default
init system sometime in the not-too-distant future? I'd be interested to hear
if there's anything else that has made you switch.
I have not liked what arch has turned into for some time now, approx
2-3 years.
It is not meant as "This sounds a bit inflammatory and
over-generalised" arch just doesn't fit my needs now and I don't care
for the direction...That's all.
I starting switching well before this systemd the change started.
I have stopped using arch except for one server that does mail and DNS.
It is presently being moved to "my own linux distro" based on LFS and
using pacman for the package manager.
I'm genuinely curious about this: if you're using pacman as the package
manager, are you building your own packages and hosting your own package
repository, or are you using the standard Arch repositories? If it's the
latter, it sounds like you'd end up with an Arch system that happened to be
bootstrapped using LFS...
Paul
I started by using arch PKGBUILDS but that did not give me what I needed
or wanted, so....
I host my own repo on my own network.
I build my own packages, creating my own PKGBUILDS using nothing from
arch but based on LFS.
I will not end up with an arch system boot strapped by LFS but a scratch
built system base on my needs.
It is very different from the file system directory structure up with
sysvinit init system.
The process that I used was to take LFS-6.8 and create a build system
(scripts) that follow the book but using the pacman package manager.
I will update this to LFS-7.2 after it becomes available in Sept. After
words I will use BLFS to create a desktop system and serves packages.
