Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Booting Ubuntu With Systemd Went Surprisingly Well

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    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.

    Comment


    • #12
      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.

      Comment


      • #13
        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.

        Comment


        • #14
          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.

          Comment

          Working...
          X