zlacker

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/tree/main/src/core doesn't look like 1678 C files to me.

>>raggi+(OP)
In what way was Bruce incorrect, your one link excepted?

>>raggi+(OP)
Github says 2.8k files when selecting c (including headers...) https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Asystemd%2Fsystemd++langua...

If the project is even split in different parts that you need to understand... already makes the point.

>>cf100c+P
he is counting every c file in the systemd _repository_ which houses multiple projects, libraries and daemons. he equates that to the c file count for a single init. it's a disingenuous comparison. systemd-init is a small slice of the code in the systemd repository.

>>raggi+42
I'm guessing he shares my belief that systemd-init cannot exist in the wild on its own, correct? When you want a teacup, you have to get the whole 12 place dinner set.

>>cienti+K1
Well to be fair, you don't need to understand how SystemD is built to know how to use it. Unit files are pretty easy to wrap your head around, it took me a while to adjust but I dig it now.

To make an analogy: another part of LFS is building a compiler toolchain. You don't need to understand GCC internals to know how to do that.

>>ktm5j+va
> Well to be fair, you don't need to understand how SystemD is built to know how to use it.

The attitude that you don't need to learn what is inside the magic black box is exactly the kind of thing LFS is pushing against. UNIX traditionally was a "worse is better" system, where its seen as better design to have a simple system that you can understand the internals of even if that simplicity leads to bugs. Simple systems that fit the needs of the users can evolve into complex systems that fit the needs of users. But you (arguably) can't start with a complex system that people don't use and get users.

If anyone hasn't read the full Worse Is Better article before, its your lucky day:

https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html

>>ktm5j+va
The whole point of LFS is to understand how the thing works.

>>joseph+li
LFS is full of packages that fit your description of a black box. It shows you how to compile and configure packages, but I don't remember them diving into the code internals of a single one.

I understand not wanting to shift from something that is wholly explainable to something that isn't, but it's not the end of the world.

>>ktm5j+mm
No, its not the end of the world. And I agree, LFS isn't going to be the best resource for learning how a compiler works or cron or ntp. But the init process & systemd is so core to linux. I can certainly see the argument that they should be part of the "from scratch" parts.

>>joseph+JN
You still build it from scratch (meaning you compile from source).. they don't dive into Linux code internals either.

They still explain what an init system is for and how to use it.

>>cf100c+w4
IIRC the mandatory components are the init system, udev, dbus, and journald. Journald is probably the most otherwise-optional feeling one (udev and dbus are both pretty critical for anything linux regardless), though you can put it into a passthrough mode so you don't have to deal with its log format if you don't want. Everything else is optional.

>>raggi+42
> he is counting every c file in the systemd _repository_ which houses multiple projects, libraries and daemons. he equates that to the c file count for a single init. it's a disingenuous comparison.

See, this is why when I refer to the Systemd Project, I spell it as "SystemD", and when I'm referring to systemd(1), I spell it "systemd". I understand that some folks who only wish to shit on the Systemd Project also spell it that way, but I ain't one of them.

> systemd-init is a small slice of the code in the systemd repository.

Given the context:

   Yes, systemd provides a lot of capabilities, but we will be losing some things I consider important.

I'd say that the topic of discussion was SystemD, rather than systemd. systemd doesn't provide you with all that many capabilities; it's really not much more than what you get with OpenRC + a supervisor (either supervise-daemon or s6).

>>rcxdud+3m1
> ... dbus [is] pretty critical for anything linux regardless

Weird. If I weren't a sicko and had OBS Studio installed on my multipurpose box [0] I'd not have dbus installed on it.

dbus is generally optional; not that many packages require it. [1]

[0] Two of its several purposes are video transcoding and file serving.

[1] This is another area where Gentoo Linux is (sadly) one of the absolute best Linux distros out there.

>>ktm5j+KV
The problem is ultimately that by choosing one, the other gets left out. So whatever is left out just has one more nail in its coffin. With LFS being the "more or less official how-to guide of building a Linux system", therefore sysvinit is now essentially "officially" deprecated by Linux. This is what is upsetting people here.

I'm OK with that in the end because my system is a better LFS anyhow. The only part that bothers me is that the change was made with reservations, rather than him saying no and putting his foot down, insisting that sysvinit stay in regardless of Gnome/KDE. But I do understand the desire to get away from having to maintain two separate versions of the book.

Ultimately I just have to part ways with LFS for good, sadly. I'm thankful for these people teaching me how to build a Linux system. It would have been 100x harder trying to do it without them.

>>its_ma+yY3
Linux is just a kernel, that does not ship with any sort of init system.. so I don't see how anything is being deprecated by Linux.

The LFS project is free to make any decisions that they want about what packages they're going to include in their docs. If anyone is truly that upset about this then they should volunteer their time to the project instead of commenting here about what they think the project should do IMO.

>>adastr+3j
nothing is actually stopping people from understanding systemd-init except a constant poorly justified flame war. it's better documented than pretty much everything that came before it.