Github says 2.8k files when selecting c (including headers...) https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Asystemd%2Fsystemd++langua...
If the project is even split in different parts that you need to understand... already makes the point.
Github says 2.8k files when selecting c (including headers...) https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Asystemd%2Fsystemd++langua...
If the project is even split in different parts that you need to understand... already makes the point.
Well to be fair, you don't need to understand how SystemD is built to know how to use it. Unit files are pretty easy to wrap your head around, it took me a while to adjust but I dig it now.
To make an analogy: another part of LFS is building a compiler toolchain. You don't need to understand GCC internals to know how to do that.
> Well to be fair, you don't need to understand how SystemD is built to know how to use it.
The attitude that you don't need to learn what is inside the magic black box is exactly the kind of thing LFS is pushing against. UNIX traditionally was a "worse is better" system, where its seen as better design to have a simple system that you can understand the internals of even if that simplicity leads to bugs. Simple systems that fit the needs of the users can evolve into complex systems that fit the needs of users. But you (arguably) can't start with a complex system that people don't use and get users.
If anyone hasn't read the full Worse Is Better article before, its your lucky day:
https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html
LFS is full of packages that fit your description of a black box. It shows you how to compile and configure packages, but I don't remember them diving into the code internals of a single one.
I understand not wanting to shift from something that is wholly explainable to something that isn't, but it's not the end of the world.
No, its not the end of the world. And I agree, LFS isn't going to be the best resource for learning how a compiler works or cron or ntp. But the init process & systemd is so core to linux. I can certainly see the argument that they should be part of the "from scratch" parts.
You still build it from scratch (meaning you compile from source).. they don't dive into Linux code internals either.
They still explain what an init system is for and how to use it.
The problem is ultimately that by choosing one, the other gets left out. So whatever is left out just has one more nail in its coffin. With LFS being the "more or less official how-to guide of building a Linux system", therefore sysvinit is now essentially "officially" deprecated by Linux. This is what is upsetting people here.
I'm OK with that in the end because my system is a better LFS anyhow. The only part that bothers me is that the change was made with reservations, rather than him saying no and putting his foot down, insisting that sysvinit stay in regardless of Gnome/KDE. But I do understand the desire to get away from having to maintain two separate versions of the book.
Ultimately I just have to part ways with LFS for good, sadly. I'm thankful for these people teaching me how to build a Linux system. It would have been 100x harder trying to do it without them.
Linux is just a kernel, that does not ship with any sort of init system.. so I don't see how anything is being deprecated by Linux.
The LFS project is free to make any decisions that they want about what packages they're going to include in their docs. If anyone is truly that upset about this then they should volunteer their time to the project instead of commenting here about what they think the project should do IMO.
The whole point of LFS is to understand how the thing works.
nothing is actually stopping people from understanding systemd-init except a constant poorly justified flame war. it's better documented than pretty much everything that came before it.