From ArchWiki
Revision as of 02:49, 22 December 2013 by Kynikos (Talk | contribs) (systemd no longer supports initscripts: re)

Jump to: navigation, search

Initscripts emulation

Hi, I pushed the sysvinit rc.local facility to systemd.

# cat /etc/systemd/system/ 
Description=/etc/rc.local Compatibility
ExecStart=/usr/bin/bash /etc/rc.local

The rc.local script displays (important) informations on the console and expects a validation with the return key.

# cat /etc/rc.local
read -s key

The informations are well displayed on console but the graphic manager starts before the keyboard confirmation...

Note that tty1 is disabled.

# ll /etc/systemd/system/
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  0 17 mars  12:52 getty@tty1.service
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 38  2 sept.  2012 getty@tty2.service -> /usr/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  0 17 mars  12:17 getty@tty4.service
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  0 17 mars  12:17 getty@tty5.service
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  0 17 mars  12:17 getty@tty6.service

How can I start the graphic manager after the keyboard confirmation?
-- Lacsap, 18 March 2013

Should the section "writing a custom .service" be expanded?

I think so.. as long as I got, this is necessary to run self-made scripts during the boot process, but this is not clear and the structure of the files is not well presented.

Moreover, when explain how to transit from the initscript, some referrals on how to move the old custom hooks in /etc/rc.d/functions.d to be executed by systemd, should be made.
-- DarioP (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be expanded indeed. As a newbie, it is easy to grasp the concept of "put your code in rc.local", and it's not clear how to transition. Specific questions, as also mentioned by DarioP: In what directory should I place my service definition? On the examples page, there are some files named with an at-sign (@), what difference does that make? It would be very helpful to have a complete example for running a single command at boot (my example: echo noop > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler).
-- Fa2k (talk) 3 February 2013

Systemd defaults / to rshared, gotcha

Still reading up on this, so I'm not 100% solid but I discovered during the systemd transition that it defaults the / mount to rshared (see Shared subtree for definitions). Excerpted from core/mount-setup.c in systemd github:
/* Mark the root directory as shared in regards to mount
 * propagation. The kernel defaults to "private", but we think
 * it makes more sense to have a default of "shared" so that
 * nspawn and the container tools work out of the box. If
 * specific setups need other settings they can reset the
 * propagation mode to private if needed. */
if (detect_container(NULL) <= 0)
        if (mount(NULL, "/", NULL, MS_REC|MS_SHARED, NULL) < 0)
                log_warning("Failed to set up the root directory for shared mount propagation: %m");

This means that all bind mounts made through fstab will default to shared behavior, not private. For those users who depend on non-recursive bind mounts, this can be a very big gotcha (as the mount propagation effectively nullifies the non-recursion). I think it should be at least noted under Filesystem Mounts, since fstab bind entries definitely may not preserve behavior across the systemd transition and there are definitely some systems that would fail to start up/operate properly due to this, perhaps even silently.

As a side note, for nested bind mounts this also results in multiplicative bloat of the mount table, depending on what kind of nesting structure is used (it's actually relatively easy to construct a nesting sequence that makes 2^n mounts out of n mount calls).

Still looking into good (and easy) configuration solutions.

Compgamer89 (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You may find this commit useful. --David Strauss (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

systemd no longer supports initscripts
-- D garbage

Please add your signature next time by typing four tildes (~~~~)
Anyway, I think it may be worth considering to remove all initscripts related sections. Initscripts has been unsupported for almost half a year now, whoever still hasn't switched is screwed anyway. About time this article gets a little shorter. Other opinions?
-- 65kid (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Considering that, on multiple occasions, I've seen people come into the #archlinux channel on IRC and state that they haven't updated their systems for almost a year, I think we should keep this info in the wiki for a couple more months at least.
-- Jstjohn (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
To clarify what I said previously, I mean that we should keep the "migrating from initscripts to systemd" information around for a while. I have no problem with removing information about initscripts that is not in the context of migrating to systemd.
-- Jstjohn (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think there's probably been sufficient time for users to migrate to systemd. I now support removing all legacy information on initscripts, including Systemd#Migration_from_SysVinit.2Finitscripts. Thoughts on finally getting rid of this cruft?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, probably at this stage it would be easier to reinstall a 1-year-old system than try to upgrade it, so I'd support the deletion. However that section seems to be still referenced externally, at least I've found [1]. Why not try to move it just above the Troubleshooting section and put a Deletion template at the top of it, just to see if we get any complaints here. After a while, actually deleting it will finally feel safe enough. -- Kynikos (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. I've just moved the section and marked it for deletion.
-- Jstjohn (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just updated all of the non-English pages as well, except for Arabic.
-- Jstjohn (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, let's leave it there for some more weeks and then it can go :) -- Kynikos (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I just move it to Sysvinit. So the info could stay longer until we remove Sysvinit and initscripts.--Fengchao (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Amazing idea! -- Kynikos (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplication of content in Native configuration section

I don't remember if this topic has already been discussed here, but it seems to me that systemd#Native configuration is duplicating information that IMO better belongs to other articles:

I would suggest removing all these sections or replacing them with links to the reported articles, possibly merging any information that those articles are missing.

-- Kynikos (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

+1 for move them out. They are in a central page because at that time, initscripts is the only init supported. Now when a user want to know how to set up LVM, LVM is the natural target. Very few of them will ever go to Systemd and go to LVM section. -- Fengchao (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, started with systemd#Hostname, any help will be appreciated of course, I think there are also other sections that can be moved out. -- Kynikos (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I just merged systemd#Virtual console into KEYMAP.[2] [3]
-- Jstjohn (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just merged systemd#Kernel modules into Kernel modules. Well, it was almost merged, so I finished it... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've marked all the sections under Systemd#Native configuration for merge/move/deletion. -- Kynikos (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I merged systemd#Hardware clock to Time. -- Ndt (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just merged systemd#Automount into fstab, so systemd#Native configuration has only two short subsections. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Whole section deleted at last. Close. --Fengchao (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

description of services with multiple instances (@ sign)

As a new archlinux user I found this answer on stack exchange useful for understanding what the @ sign was doing in the names of some service files.

I thought it might be a useful thing to include in the article - maybe by someone a bit more experienced than me =].

--Ayounggun (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)