Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Booting Ubuntu With Systemd Went Surprisingly Well

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    We've still got 204 in Debian unstable so maybe that contributed to their decision.
    Indeed. systemd-204 was released May 9th 2013 and is the latest version in Debian unstable and Debian testing, so that would have been the version that got imported into Ubuntu for 14.04. Arch is on systemd-213 (May 28th 2014). Fedora is on systemd-208 (1st October 2013). It is sometimes surprising how far behind upstream Debian unstable/testing lags compared to other distributions. From the bugtracker I do not see any specific reason why systemd has not been updated in Debian, systemd bugs in unstable, though there are 81 outstanding bugs including some serious ones like boot failures, so perhaps they are focusing on fixing those bugs first.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisb View Post
    Indeed. systemd-204 was released May 9th 2013 and is the latest version in Debian unstable and Debian testing, so that would have been the version that got imported into Ubuntu for 14.04. Arch is on systemd-213 (May 28th 2014). Fedora is on systemd-208 (1st October 2013). It is sometimes surprising how far behind upstream Debian unstable/testing lags compared to other distributions. From the bugtracker I do not see any specific reason why systemd has not been updated in Debian, systemd bugs in unstable, though there are 81 outstanding bugs including some serious ones like boot failures, so perhaps they are focusing on fixing those bugs first.
    I think a major reason that even Debian unstable/testing is so much behind is that everything "froze" during the discussion of new default init systemd for "Jessie", and that going forward from systemd-204 will expose how difficult it will be to continuing supporting non-systemd init-systems on Debian. Eg. should they release Gnome in two different versions (one for systemd, one for sysvinit)?

    Supporting non-systemd platforms are becoming a major hassle since the non-systemd users are totally un-organised; they demand support for their init systems, but don't offer any coherent development to support their choice. So packages managers don't seem to get much (if any) outside support or even patches from the outside. Same with upstream developers.

    The problem is of course, that there seem to be some vague consensus among some Debian developers that Debian should support multiple init systems, even though they themselves think systemd should be default init system. Other distros can just go forward since they don't have any ambition about that.

    As it is now however, there doesn't seem to be any serious work to support multiple init-systems on Debian, so any going forward with a systemd version beyond 204 will expose that, and hurt some peoples feelings.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    23

    Default

    When this is going to be fixed? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026119
    Instead of mocking upstart failing to unmount stuff, Lennart should fix his own crap.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stellarwind View Post
    When this is going to be fixed? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026119
    Instead of mocking upstart failing to unmount stuff, Lennart should fix his own crap.
    Works fine here with kernel-3.14.x. on Fedora 20 using LVM2.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •