From ArchWiki
Revision as of 06:10, 18 June 2013 by Fengchao (Talk | contribs) (Do we have to delete this page?)

Jump to: navigation, search

Do we have to delete this page?

sysvinitAUR is in the AUR so it still is relevant to Arch. OpenRC has its page too. -- Karol (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, you're right, I've removed the template, the user who added it is just a bit unexperienced :) -- Kynikos (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure I am but that's irrelevant, I was told on IRC by Earnestly and MrElendig that I should do it. Kyrias (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I see, I've just updated the article to better reflect the current status of SysVinit and warn uninformed users. -- Kynikos (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I just revised your note to more strongly encourage adoption of systemd. Also, note that systemd has ~95% adoption according to [1]. I'm not sure how "Popular unofficial packages" is determined, but it lists ~30% for initscripts/sysvinit.
I talked with falconindy on IRC, and he says that these stats are "append only", so information on old packages is not reliable.
-- Jstjohn (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I e-mailed Mr.Elendig and he said that the page should be marked out of date until it's updated with the info how / where from to get the scripts (daemons etc.) as Arch doesn't ship them anymore.
I "unclosed" the discussion for now. -- Karol (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this page is worth all this effort that's being spent... I mean, sysvinitAUR is still in the AUR, if there's somebody willing to add info to the page, good on him, otherwise this will be yet another incomplete article of our wiki. Note that the installation section is already marked for Expansion.
Now, the only reason I see to delete this page is if it's proved to be "harmful" for the community, i.e. people are not switching to systemd or even replacing systemd with sysvinit just because the mere existence of this article is making them think that sysvinit is better than systemd or that sysvinit is supported by Arch, thus increasing help requests on the forums etc. IMHO this doesn't seem reasonable, however it's not that I'll start a petition to save the page in case it bothers everybody else ;)
Only as a last mention, the fate of this article is probably linked to that of Initscripts, Initscripts/rc.conf and Initscripts/Writing rc.d scripts.
-- Kynikos (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I emailed Pierre last week about updating the package stats page to provide more current information, but I haven't heard back from him yet. It would be nice to have some current statistics on systemd/sysvinit usage before deleting these articles, but I don't know if we'll ever get those.
It might be a good idea to move the information about migrating from initscripts/sysvinit to systemd to its own article and linking to it from the systemd page. Then we can clean up the systemd article to only include information necessary for new installations and delete the legacy initscripts articles you mentioned. Thoughts on this approach?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, migration part should moved here from Systemd. Lots of rc.d left over need clean up, this page should be deleted after that. -- Fengchao (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)