Systemd-Free Artix Linux OS is Looking For Packagers (artixlinux.org) 209
MrBrklyn (Slashdot reader #4,775) writes: Artix Linux, the young systemd free OS based on arch, is reaching a critical point in it's development and calling for new packagers.
Here's more from the ongoing thread on the project's forum: You don't have to be an expert in the occult arts for that; an elementary grasp of Linux in general and how PKGBUILD works should be enough for basic contributions. Help and training will be provided, free of charge!
Here's more from the ongoing thread on the project's forum: You don't have to be an expert in the occult arts for that; an elementary grasp of Linux in general and how PKGBUILD works should be enough for basic contributions. Help and training will be provided, free of charge!
"Help and training will be provided" (Score:3)
Most likely it will be the usual, RTFM!
Re: (Score:2)
In the early days of Linux, there were no manuals. You had to read the source code. Surprisingly good comments back then.
Re: (Score:2)
No, there were HowTos - tons of them Source code is never good documentation
Re: (Score:2)
Void Linux (Score:1, Interesting)
Void Linux's package system is similar enough to Arch's, and Void isn't using systemd and you can choose either glibc or musl based installs. I think I'd rather throw my weight behind Void than try to fork Arch.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as i love Void, and I use it in a netbook, I find the limited amount of packages a problem. Artix uses all the Arch packages, except those that break without systemd and must be recompiled or replaced, and that's what this call for packagers is all about.
Artix linux started with OpenRC, but now also offers Runit, the same init used in Void.
If you like Arch but hate systemd, go Artix.
Phrasing (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a weird way to say "There aren't really that many developers or other technically skilled users who don't want systemd."
Re: Phrasing (Score:2, Insightful)
... but also want to run Arch you mean. There are already a few systemd-free Linux distros.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
the two people that met those specific criteria are already involved.. but three of them want to quit.
Re: Phrasing (Score:1)
Not all of us sysadmibs and developers base our technical decisions on geek dummyspit of the week. Systemd is a weird duck, but if you can't evolve your not a scientist, your not even an engineer, just a technician. And hey, that's OK. Technicians keep the world turning, but my attention spans far too short to keep chained to conventions that got unchallenging 20 years ago
Re: Phrasing (Score:5, Insightful)
I am scientist. I have to learn new stuff every day. I develop new stuff every day. But I have no sympathy for people wasting my time by breaking standard tools or conventions with no good reason. And the "you are just to lazy to learn new things" argument is just BS. I want to spend my time learning interesting things and not have to relearn how to do basic stuff with my computer because some random dude at Redhat thinks the ideas he has are so important that he can waste the time of everybody else.
Re: (Score:1)
And that is just half of it. Systemd breaks a lot of existing systems, and most importantly, its direction promises to waste ever more time breaking things that have been working smoothly for decades by using a completely new paradign. That means that for older users, instead of being able to rely on establed and well learned paradigns that took years to do a deep learning, and to move forward with more important and newer skills, that they have to double back and relearn the basics again, and for no goo
systemd: the good stuff (Score:3)
I agree with you that far too little effort has been extended in pushing systemd concepts as standards outside Linux, and the scope has been distressingly ambitious.
Still, systemd is a great improvement over the respawn behavior of inittab, allowing me to drop root privilege, set environment variables, chroot(), all combined with restart supervision. Yes, there are likely many other programs that do this, but respawn is SysV's job, and it should be more flexible. As it stands, when I have to do this, I writ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. When I went from Centos 6x to Centos 7x I had to learn nothing to make the box go from 100% uptime to crashing 2-3 times a week. Systemd is great, for no known reason it took a perfectly working system and turned it into a metal case full of steaming shit. Systemd only helps DIstro builders, it does NOTHING for any System Admin or Server wrangler. I have real work to do on my computers, so fixing a distro's fatal flaw isn't (and never will be) on my todo list.
Re: Phrasing (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the intern who wrote the Linux kernel. I've heard dishonest critism like that for decades and it always comes from some deep seated basic misunderstanding of how the world work. Most init scripts are not written by interns, but those that are, that is OK as well.
It is better than trusting everything to a single development team .... one I am not particularly trustful of.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I meant that quite literally. We had interns write the init scripts for our product (a multi-million-dollar system of embedded Linux-based components), because the "real developers" were writing "real software".
In our product, the exact capabilities of each component depend on what other components are available. Through a "interesting" architecture, that discovery happens at startup, with a command-line constructed in the init scripts which were, as noted, written by interns with all of the real-world
Re: (Score:2)
One of us is confused. systemd logs stdout and stderr by default. Older init systems did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Phrasing (Score:5, Informative)
The previous standard interactions with init, including the use of shell scripts in /etc/init.d, and the chkconfig and service commands still work. You don't actually need to learn anything new unless you want to take advantage of the new features that systemd offers.
So you might be able to see why your argument rings hollow.
That is not true on both fronts. The standard init stuff does not work with systemd. Not the login scripts, the X scripts, sound scripts, and more.
Secodnly, you do need to learn how systemd does weird stuff, unless you want a system where systemd allows any password to work with sudo - and other weird stuff that has leaked into the distros.
The distros that adopted systemd didn't just keep using the same init scripts. They adapted to it. In order to get around it, everything is affected from udev on up the food chain. The borad change in the distros since adaptation can not be avoided because of a smug comment on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
One legit bug, and one bug in a related project that isn't used by any distros (AFAIK). Neither of which support the wild assertions in the comment I replied to.
Re: Phrasing (Score:2)
You show your ignorance making such a statement, even some of the distros (sles, ubuntu, redhat) init.d scripts fail in the upgrade to systemd version. You find systemd nice for your home PC or laptop, that's nice. Meanwhile those of us who admin hundreds of systems find it an unstable and time consuming bloatware that tries to solve a problem we didn't have.
Re: (Score:2)
I also run hundreds of servers, running a *wide* variety of services. systemd isn't one of the applications I've found to be problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
Redhat is the main source of money and thus power in the linux world. That does not automatically mean that they got it right all the time. In fact, sometimes I think Redhat might have an interest to make Linux less simple and easy to understand, in order to sell their services and enterprise stuff.
Most other distributions have gone along with systemd because it is the path of least resistance.
Arch has resisted for a while, but caved in last year.
Arch's philosophy is to take upstream as plain-vanilla as pos
Re: Phrasing (Score:2)
The "reasons" for systemd are given by those who don't admin hundreds of systems, but rather are immature idealists engaging in mental masturbation. No serious system admin I know thinks it provides any useful thing. It is contrary to the Unix way, adds immense time to troubleshooting, doesn't solve any problem an Enterprise server has. And ironically at my employer, I also have to waste hours fixing systemd issues for our data scientists as it is an impediment to the operation of common services developed
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to first go to a mailing list of my distribution to learn about some random "reasons" to why some change is supposed to be good than this is almost by definition "no good reason". Is an actual improvement noticeable to the user too much to ask for?
Re: Phrasing (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I am a scientist and an engineer, and I can evolve. But since I am a good scientist and a good engineer, I will not evolve in a bad direction, and hence I will not use systemd. Live is just to short to use crappy unnecessary improvements made by people with small skills and huge egos.
Mindlessly running after a really demented hype is not "evolution". The correct term is "devolution" and it is not a good thing.
Incidentally, if you cannot recognize and build on things that are in a finished state and are more than good enough, then you are most definitely not a scientist or an engineer. Then you are just a hack.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I hear a lot of ad hominem attacks, and characterizations. I don't see a single example of a "bad" change.
I usually recognize scientists and engineers by their use of evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
I hear a lot of ad hominem attacks, and characterizations. I don't see a single example of a "bad" change.
I usually recognize scientists and engineers by their use of evidence.
^^ THIS ^^
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new to /. (Yes, I have seen your ID.)
My impression is that you are unable to actually recognize scientists and engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, me too. Oh, sure, there are quite a few people that are engineers and scientists by title only. But there are almost no scientists and engineers without the title, despite what some failures with big egos like to claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, on the plus side, the only situation where they need to claim "no evidence" is when the evidence is so strong that admitting its existence makes them automatically lose their case, because they cannot refute it. In a sense the continued claims of "no evidence" just confirm the evidence is very strong indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. The last time somebody ID'd me, they claimed I was the janitor breaking onto my own office and posting as me because they just could not believe what they found. Really amused me, same as this.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehehe, more missing the mark. Nice.
You see the problem here is on your side. Because I do know what I can do and have done and am doing, your attack does not work even one bit. What you are doing is trying to play on the insecurities most more capable people have (see, for example, the Dunning-Kruger effect: those on the right side are, on average, a lot less sure of their skills than the nil-whits on the left side). Your problem here is that I am far-right in that graph, and I know it. Some random AC
Re: (Score:2)
Still missing the mark. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing the mark. The root-cause for that is lack of independent insight on your part.
Re: (Score:2)
We all run Slackware.
Educate me: What does systemd provide/do (Score:2)
I don't know what it replaced, what it unified, what it extended, and what it does. I'd be curious to learn
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It replaces SysV init.
Basically, SysV init meant there was a lot of duplicated code involved in starting system services, as every service had to write its own SysV init script, and didn't provide a dependency mechanism (this service requires this other service be running first) so that most distros ended up hacking on a solution to provide that. (Basic example is "web server requires network running before it can start.")
systemd solves those problems and then introduces a whole host of brand new problems.
Re:Educate me: What does systemd provide/do (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that replacing sysIV init is a good idea. All the arguments for that boil down to "not invented here".
Why is it that so many tech people cannot let things that work well the fuck alone?
Re:Educate me: What does systemd provide/do (Score:4, Insightful)
How helpful.
See what systemd does about share mounting in fstab or even the
Re:Educate me: What does systemd provide/do (Score:5, Informative)
I had systemd run maybe for a combined 10h so far, in a number of new installations. Nothing but problems. Even the one where I originally thought I could leave it in (Orange Pi zero), it caused serious problems and ripping it just out for sysIV init was far easier than to track down and solve its obscure issues.
It is like Windows: Unless you do exactly what the "developers" ("cretins" would be a more appropriate term...) expect, it falls flat on its face and it is maximally unhelpful when you try to find out what is wrong. That is not anything I will tolerate in a Linux installation.
Re: (Score:1)
More ad hominem attacks on developers. I don't think you're going to sway any opinions today.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the developers were out of their depth. Probably not formally trained.
Same here. Or they failed to learn anything from their formal training. They are clearly inexperienced and have no business working on such a critical component. Now, I would not mind if systemd had remained their obscure hobbyist project. I do mind that the most efficient way to deal with their crap is to rip it out and that I have to do that on basically any new Linux installation I make.
Re: (Score:2)
I had systemd run maybe for a combined 10h so far
Wow we have an expert here!
Nothing but problems.
Given your inability to get it working vs the literally countless cases where it works just fine as a scientists and an engineer I am beginning to see a common trend in all your systemd installations.
It is like Windows: Unless you do exactly what the "developers" ("cretins" would be a more appropriate term...) expect
Funny most people don't have problems with Windows either. I was about to say maybe this Linux thing is too complicated for you, but really maybe you should stop using computers altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. And empty, probably much like your head. Makes it easy to just discount anything you say as less than worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. My empty head can use systemd without problems. Maybe it's just too complicated for you :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I am using good tools. And I do insist on good tools. After some evaluation I just found that systemd was not a good tool from available evidence. Not that this was any surprise, that it is pretty bad was clear from a purely theoretical appreciation.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you describe some of the problems you've run into? I've been steadily migrating all our many dozens of VMs to Centos 7 and I can't say that I've run into one single problem that was caused by systemd.
I've had far more problems getting sssd working right than I have systemd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how so many people run into things in actual reality that according to you are "not true". You are just a liar.
Re: (Score:2)
SysVInit worked fine for me, and no it doesn't boot slower.
Lets leave aside that this wasn't the reason for getting rid of it, but given your assertion that it doesn't boot slower is actually easily proven false in any benchmark and even when you conceptually think about the approach of sysvinit vs all the other systems that attempted to replace it, why did you decide to post this? Why make the opening sentence of your argument not only irrelevant but something very easily proven false? Anyway lets look at the rest:
See what systemD does if you've got stuff waiting for network and for whatever reason there's no network or it's flakey. No warning at all - just no boot, or eventually a boot with no warning.
"Dear user: I'm still working on this problem" I
Re: (Score:2)
.
Work on the problem BEFORE you release something that'll be shoved down my
Re:Educate me: What does systemd provide/do (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree that replacing sysIV init is a good idea. All the arguments for that boil down to "not invented here".
Why is it that so many tech people cannot let things that work well the fuck alone?
+1 Wish I had mod points for that. It seems like so many people think mature software is bad or something. Sure, Sys-init/Upstart/whatever had its issues at times (and usually in very small ways), but there were solutions to those warts; it's just that no one really put all the parts together, or so it seems to me.
I've had Systemd fail me in mysterious ways where the system refused to come up (1 I never figured out and solved by backing Systemd out), but I've never had Sys-init/Upstart/whatever fail to boot far enough I couldn't do something with it (and it fails me even in tiny ways so infrequently it's been years since that happened).
To me as a *user*, Systemd feels like a solution in search of a problem. I know the distro/package maintainers like it because it creates less work for them, but I think this is a case where the distro/package maintainers have forgotten at least 1 of their goals: to make it easier on the user.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 Wish I had mod points for that.
Thanks!
It seems like so many people think mature software is bad or something.
It does indeed. Must be some deranged idea about "old"="bad".
To me as a *user*, Systemd feels like a solution in search of a problem. I know the distro/package maintainers like it because it creates less work for them, but I think this is a case where the distro/package maintainers have forgotten at least 1 of their goals: to make it easier on the user.
This often happens when the original creators move out and the 2nd rated people take over: They think they can do better than the original creators and usually they mess it up because they completely overlook fundamental things like this. "Linux is about freedom" very much means it lets you tinker with it and all things that can reasonably be made relatively easy to change, are. sysIV init has that. The systemD people do not even seem to be
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like so many people think mature software is bad or something.
No one thinks that. People who don't see problems and are affected by solutions will often refuse to understand the problems experienced in the first place.
Sure, Sys-init/Upstart/whatever had its issues at times (and usually in very small ways), but there were solutions to those warts
The solution was bolting together a frankenstein's monster of a mess that didn't solve the underlying issue. You wouldn't be talking about the benefit of bandaids and patchwork while shitting on Windows, so why do you think it's a good idea on a piece of linux software? Biased?
it's just that no one really put all the parts together
People have put these parts together in the past and they have broken in some
Re: (Score:2)
All the arguments for that boil down to "not invented here".
So you are very clearly ignorant of the arguments then. Especially since many of the systemd replacements which by your assertion were NIH were actually replaced by something else NIH.
Why is it that so many tech people cannot let things that work well the fuck alone?
When you show us something that works well we will. But I understand why you are unable to comprehend this question given your total ignorance of why sysvinit was replaced (not just by systemd but by various attempts by various projects over the years).
gweihir: Claims to be a scientist, but turns out to be just a knight who sa
If only systemd stopped there (Score:5, Insightful)
The original purpose of systemd was to replace System V init.
They did replace System V init, in a very non-Unix-like way, with a monolithic blob full of binary interfaces, Windows-style.
They then continued to merge in more and more stuff, like a friggin DNS server. Had they stopped before replacing Network Manager with yet another integrated blob, systemd would just be a poorly thought out init system which is the opposite of the UNIX way of doing things. Since they didn't stop, but rather continue to merge more and more unrelated stuff, it's a real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The original purpose of systemd was to replace System V init.
No it wasn't. People just think it was because that's the first place they see it. Systemd's original purpose was the manage the system, with an event driven model. When you realise that you may actually understand the project a bit better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that "they" think SystemD should be a package manager too kind of tells you their thought processes on all of this: The Unix way is not their way so they will eventually make EVERYTHING their way and there will be no more Unix.
Not that I particularly care about the Unix way, but it is arguably more "philosophically" correct than the SystemD way. Furthermore, if I disagreed so vehemently in the underlying logic of an environment I was in, I would go create my own environment rather than try to subve
Right or wrong, if you want MS Office, use Office (Score:2)
> Not that I particularly care about the Unix way, but it is arguably more "philosophically" correct
I suppose the UNIX way works really well for some things and the Windows way works well for some things.
The UNIX way scales very nicely from IOT to supercomputers h all, or almost all, supercomputers use Linux or another *nix. Most corporate desktops use Windows. So it seems they each have a niche or two.
The thing is, if you want to do things the Windows way, to have a 2GB or 4GB piece of software that ha
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I particularly care about the Unix way, but it is arguably more "philosophically" correct
The UNIX way scales very nicely from IOT to supercomputers h all, or almost all, supercomputers use Linux or another *nix.
That is a very nice illustration of the Unix Way being arguably more correct. Thank you. :)
Certainly more flexible. Different learning curve (Score:2)
That's certainly an example of how it's more flexible.
On the other hand, menus allow an inexperienced user to keep exploring until they find what they're looking for (assuming the function exists). Combining small programs means you kinda have to learn what the building-blocks are and figure out how to combine them.
One big app with all the functions built into menus is probably the right choice for the UI of an ATM. To withdraw money you'd rather have a wizard than type commands. That works well when ther
Re: (Score:3)
>>It replaces SysV init.
No - it replaced all the core OS functionality. If it just replaced SysV there would have been some grumbling, but not all the outright hostility.
Re: (Score:2)
> like logs that aren't human-readable
I don't have a problem with journalctl and binary logs since they're more efficient and easier to filter by unit. My problem is when you have log messages that don't make it to the journal. That makes it much hard to troubleshoot problems.
Re: (Score:2)
One example:
systemd keeps services (including user login sessions, which it treats the same way) as a group of processes, which the previous systems did not. When I stopped a service under SysV init, it would terminate the "main" process, but if that process had started children, they might not receive that signal. Thus, SysV init might leave some resources used, and attempting to start the service later might fail. systemd can reliably terminate a service and all its descendant processes.
Furthermore, sy
Re: (Score:2)
systemd keeps services (including user login sessions, which it treats the same way) as a group of processes, which the previous systems did not. When I stopped a service under SysV init, it would terminate the "main" process, but if that process had started children, they might not receive that signal. Thus, SysV init might leave some resources used, and attempting to start the service later might fail. systemd can reliably terminate a service and all its descendant processes.>>
Systemd did not invent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
like when you're database is turned off by a failed webserver
I'm not talking about dependencies, I'm talking about process groups. Your database is almost certainly not started by your web server, or by the web server service. It's not part of the same process group.
I'm starting to get the impression that you don't understand how these things work.
Re: (Score:2)
systemd keeps services (including user login sessions, which it treats the same way) as a group of processes, which the previous systems did not.
pgroups are manipulated with simple commands, and this could have been done in the init script includes. This does not justify systemd.
systemctl can capture all of the output to stdout and stderr and collect those in logs that can be associated specifically with the service they came from, which SysV did not do.
What? Who told you that? Of course you can do that with sysvinit. You do it in the init scripts.
systemd has so many advantages that when I try to describe one advantage, I describe three.
Get back to us when you come up with something you can't do in an init script.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one of the problems with init scripts is that they weren't consistent, so while it's possible to capture all output to the logs using "2>&1 | logger", I never actually saw an init script do that.
So, a) common init scripts didn't do what you're saying they "could", and b) even if some of them did, it wasn't something you could rely on as a standard. Logging output is standard under systemd.
The same applies to process groups. Under bash, you could probably "(set -m; exec $daemon) & echo $!
Re: (Score:2)
Spot-checked a CentOS 6 system, and here's what I found:
No services appear to log stdout and stderr to logger. Anything output is printed on the console. If you're not physically at the console, that output is lost.
The "daemon" function does call cgexec if it is installed, but cgexec is not installed by default.
Numerous services don't use the "daemon" function, including mysqld, postfix, and sshd.
So, as I said: systemd does things *by default* that the older init system didn't. Not couldn't. It's possib
*You* are implying "technically skilled" (Score:2)
Anyone who is skilled, and looks at systemd, will lose his hair very quickly, at the insane "framework" shit, that only the worsr "enterprisey consultant" of the iHipster generation could come up with.
No, the traditional systems aren't great.
But suggesting systemd instead, is like suggesting somebody should try ass rape by a horse because she thinks nipple pinching hurts a bit.
How about *a sane new system*??
Neither the old clunker, NOR systemd cancer!
Re: (Score:1)
Sure there are, but preferring debian we are just using devuan linux
Re: (Score:3)
That's a weird way to say "There aren't really that many developers or other technically skilled users who don't want systemd."
And that is just half of it. Systemd breaks a lot of existing systems, and most importantly, its direction promises to waste ever more time breaking things that have been working smoothly for decades by using a completely new paradigm. That means that for older users, instead of being able to rely on established and well learned paradigms that took years to do a deep learning to master, and to move forward with more important and newer skills, that they have to double back and relearn the basics again, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a weird way to say "There aren't really that many developers or other technically skilled users who don't want systemd."
That is just the way to turn every linux distribution discussion into a systemd argument in the hopes to wear everyone out and to drive everyone away.
Nasty... reason enough to not want a systemd OS.
Re: Phrasing (Score:2)
Sounds more like a Debian issue. Iâ(TM)ve had headless systemd based RHEL 7 running under KVM for years.
Which logfile editor (Score:2)
I want to know which logfile editor to use to read the journal.d or /etc/logs. Vim or Emacs?
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
For the systemd log you use journalctl, but afaik no distribution has removed the oldschool textlogs available as usual under /var/log/. I use nano :-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Systemd is Bad right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree.
The hate is real (and has been discussed to death already), but the list of alternatives is depressingly small. Linux Distros are a necessary component of the Linux ecosystem with updates and fixes. If the options are between a distro with an init system you don't like, or some obscure/niche distro which doesn't have extended support options, the decision has been made for you. And unfortunately systemd has reached that level of penetration.
And THAT is why additional distros coming along without systemd is newsworthy... (Well, by slashdot standards I guess).
Re: (Score:2)
The hate is real
He didn't say the hate wasn't real. He said the hate is a vocal minority.
And THAT is why additional distros coming along without systemd is newsworthy... (Well, by slashdot standards I guess).
Nope. Slashdot's standards being a group of that vocal minority is why they consider this newsworthy and the editors know it. Clicks baby Clicks. This story has more comments on it than most others on the front page.
Feed the outrage!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If as many people as you imply hate SystemD so much, then there sho
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the markets have spoken, and the predictions of doomsday were nothing more than the echo chamber effect of a very small and very vocal minority of people who do not appear to represent either Linux users or Linux developers as a whole.
There's no doom. It, like the system before, mostly works but it's a little bit shit, less transparent and harder to debug the more obscure cases. But it seems more convenient for distro packagers who seemed constitutionally unable to write decent shell scripts.
Mostly,
Re: (Score:2)
With logs, that people can see working and find errors.
Thats what would be good to return to.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a self-inflicted problem (Score:5, Funny)
This issue is only for Luddites who are stuck in the past. Once systemd achieves its ultimate goal of moving every available service and user application into a single executable, distros aren't even going to need "packages" anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that systemd needs to be complete is a good init system.
Re: (Score:2)
What Linux needs is a good App Store. >
Shirly you Gest
packaging system (Score:2)
Okay, great for ditching systemd but why did we need yet another packaging system? Was something wrong with dpkg or rpm? Maybe you wouldn't need so many packagers if you could leverage the scripts already written for rpm and deb derived systems?
Re:packaging system (Score:5, Informative)
Artix Linux is an Arch Linux derivative, and it uses the same package system as Arch does. If you want the Debian derivative, that's called Devuan.
sadly slashdot isn't working in firefox (Score:2)
I can't read on the comments any longer accept in chrome. I thought it might be noscript, evidently there is something more fundamentally wrong. I only see about 3 comments, and nothing else is coming down. It is now unusable,
Just port NetBSD's pkgsrc. (Score:1)
NetBSD's pkgsrc [netbsd.org] collection has been designed to be portable. I believe it's already been ported to Slackware, and Solaris and other OSes.
The tools exist to just import it into this new Linux flavor.
Or if you're just trying to escape systemD madness, just use NetBSD. Or one of the other freenix choices that already has a package system built for it.
Re: SystemD maintainer (Score:2)
Go home Lennart, the adults are talking.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd volunteer to maintain the SystemD package and help them move to the future. >>
My future is watching my grandchildren play in the sand in the beach and continuing research on computational applications to biological and genetic problem....mostly using C++ and R.
It is not chasing Pottering garbage down a rabbit hole and wondering why X won't start up after 40 years of stability because systemd broke it.