Talk:OpenRC

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alternative way to install OpenRC and eudev (artoo's way)

Instead of the AUR, one can simply build from artoo's git repo, add all the packages to a local repo, and install from that.

Steps include:

# One time
mkdir -p ~/builds && cd ~/builds
git clone https://github.com/udeved/pkgbuilds openrc-eudev
# To keep up to date
cd ~/builds/openrc-eudev
git pull
cd sysvinit && makepkg -s
cd ..
cd openrc-core && makepkg -d # to ignore sysvinit dependency
cd ..
cd openrc-base && makepkg -s
cd ..
cd openrc-desktop && makepkg -s
cd ..
cd polkit-consolekit && makepkg -s
cd ..
cd consolekit && makepkg -s
cd ..
cd eudev && makepkg -s
cd ..
cd eudev-systemdcompat && makepkg -d # to ignore eudev dependency
cd ..
cd upower-pm-utils && makepkg -d
cd ..
# Copying built packages in one place
mkdir -p ~/builds/openrc-eudev/packages
cp ~/builds/openrc-eudev/*/*.pkg.tar.xz ~/builds/openrc-eudev/packages

This probably takes care of the base. The built packages could be added to a pacman local repo.

After that the built packages could be installed as:

sudo pacman -S openrc-base
sudo pacman -S openrc-desktop
sudo pacman -S eudev-base

Aaditya (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a "slightly" more complex script to automate this:
#/usr/bin/env bash

[[ -d openrc-eudev ]] || git clone https://github.com/udeved/pkgbuilds openrc-eudev
cd openrc-eudev       || exit 1

_nodep=(openrc-core eudev-systemdcompat upower-pm-utils)
_dep=(sysvinit openrc-base openrc-desktop polkit-consolekit consolekit eudev)
_fail() { echo "$i failed to build." > ../fail.log; }

for i in "${_dep[@]}"; do
    (cd "$i" && { makepkg -sr || _fail; })
done

for i in "${_nodep[@]}"; do
    (cd "$i" && { makepkg -d  || _fail; })
done

mkdir -p packages && cp */*.pkg.tar.xz packages/
-- Alad (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting script, I did not know about pushd and popd, thx. Aaditya (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, and edited to remove it. :P -- Alad (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Complete" guide

WRT [1]. This is a list of steps with none motivation on why they are taken, and a "root of all evil" which sharply contrasts against otherwise purely technical arguments on this wiki, besides going against Forum etiquette. I also notice how there was no reaction to the rewrite discussion, besides a backhand "horribly scattered" remark on the added website.

Why the installation of packages requires a motivation? There's a clear explanation of why each step is taken; motivation is irrelevant. The link is directly to the installation procedure which is as technical as the wiki and the description is all-neutral too: "Complete OpenRC installation guide for Arch Linux". However the rewrite discussion and effort was effectively terminated by your "The regular maintainers of this page will probably shed tears on my changes" melodramatic quote which needlessly negated the main maintainers' work. Don't get me wrong here, I totally support your role as a Wiki admin and I appreciate your efforts in explaining your reasons behind your actions. I just don't agree with some of them (reasons and actions).

Changing the init is an advanced process. Users are expected to understand the steps they take, and the only way to achieve that is by incorporating more general articles (this is actually the idea behind all ArchWiki articles). You don't want people to helplessly guess at problems or go as far as seeing reinstalling the system as only solution.

Advanced it is, undoubtely. However there's no reason to make it appear difficult. In fact, switching to openrc (and back to systemd for that matter) is just installing 3-4 basic packages either way. It's the configuration afterwards that requires more attention and knowledge, but generally Arch is aimed at above average users. External links are just for that: to clarify things that (for whatever reason) can't be incorporated into ArchWiki articles. If everything could be covered in our Wiki, we wouldn't need forums, mailing lists or IRC channels.

I doubt we'll come to an agreement here, however. It's two paradigms: the short-term, "task-based" approach, and the long-term "goal-based" one (Arch cleary follows the latter, or there would be no "derivates").

That's a fallacy and a demeaning one at that.

I'll give some time for reactions but in its current state, the added link has no place in this article. -- Alad (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So, a clear 1-2-3 guide of migrating from systemd is not to be accepted here, no matter what? I'm sorry, but given the way the few installation steps were removed from the main article I doubt there's any other way you'd find to your liking. Anyway, I'll remove the offending heading and comment of the main systemd-free.org page soon and see what happens.

-- Nous (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"For installation of packages"? You're downplaying the consequences here - for example, when you instruct users to install eudev and remove systemd you add a significant increase in maintenance complexity for no actual benefit in functionality. If you still choose to do so, that's fine, but you then need the fine print to manage this added complexity - none of this is mentioned on the page in question.
It was me who called the melodramatic quote melodramatic. [2] As to the "paradigms", perhaps I misunderstood your intent but if we want to continue this discussion I'd suggest dropping accusations on either side.
Either way, I'm not stubbornly insisting on the current state of the page. See for example [3]. I also don't mind people linking a summary of steps for the "artoo way" if there's a clear distinction between necessary and optional steps, and void of rants against or for any particular system. As you say, Arch is aimed at competent users and these can make up their own minds. -- Alad (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad there's some common ground here and I've already toned down my pages, as I intended to do anyway. But truly, switching between openrc and systemd (however serious and daunting it might look) is trivial and I've personally done it dozens of times without a single failure. It's by no means an approximated procedure, but a repeatable and dependable one. Concerning the fine print, it's a harmless misconception and is easily disproven. A initial basic configuration is required of course, but from then on system updates go smoothly as eudev-systemdcompat provides hard systemd dependencies: no added complexity or maintenance. Now, if things seriously worsen for non-systemd installations in the future, we can always have another talk about that.
-- Nous (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)