[lfs-support] Booting LFS with systemd

Frans de Boer frans at fransdb.nl
Thu Jul 19 06:46:47 PDT 2018


On 06-07-18 16:44, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> On 07/06/2018 01:20 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
>> On 07/05/2018 11:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2018 02:48 PM, Frans de Boer wrote:
>>>> On 06/30/2018 01:29 PM, Hazel Russman wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:25:29 -0400
>>>>> Michael Shell <list1 at michaelshell.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:06:00 +0800
>>>>>> Xi Ruoyao <ryxi at stu.xidian.edu.cn> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now I only use "initrd" directive to update CPU microcode and fix 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> buggy ACPI DSDT of my laptop (another sad story).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as there now seems to be several people who suffer with the
>>>>>> ACPI DSDT driver bug, you guys should make sure upstream is aware
>>>>>> of the problem, if they aren't already.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ...........
>>>>>>    Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>> I did a git bisect on my system, but I couldn't make much sense of 
>>>>> the result. The commit it finally settled on didn't seem to have 
>>>>> anything to with acpi.
>>>>>
>>>>> [quote]
>>>>> Bisecting: 2 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
>>>>> [9af9b94068fb1ea3206a700fc222075966fbef14] x86/cpu/AMD: Handle SME 
>>>>> reduction in physical address size
>>>>>
>>>>> Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
>>>>> [33c2b803edd13487518a2c7d5002d84d7e9c878f] x86/mm: Remove 
>>>>> phys_to_virt() usage in ioremap()
>>>>>
>>>>> Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
>>>>> [7744ccdbc16f0ac4adae21b3678af93775b3a386] x86/mm: Add Secure 
>>>>> Memory Encryption (SME) support
>>>>> [unquote]
>>>>>
>>>>> I sent the result to the kernel acpi development list but never got 
>>>>> an answer. If someone else on this list wants to try, I can send 
>>>>> him my complete bisect logs.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Hazel
>>>> This quite frustrating. After recompiling, following the book to the 
>>>> letter, I still get a frozen LFS system.
>>>> One thing I do note however is that the freezing always occurs after 
>>>> systemd has detected that it is on a virtual machine. A number of 
>>>> error messages is send, but due to ratelimiting I can't see them 
>>>> because they are suppressed.
>>>>
>>>> I had even rebuild everything with systemd-232, and that worked as 
>>>> before. But after 232, things started to behave strange. Now way to 
>>>> debug systemd, whatever I do....
>>>>
>>>> Help?
>>>
>>> I don't mean to be pedantic, but I really don't think you would run 
>>> into these types of problems using System V.  Why not try that?
>>>
>>>   -- Bruce
>>>
>> Hi Bruce,
>> With System V there is - of course - no problem. The thing is that 
>> systemd - if it runs well - is somewhat easier to use because of the 
>> use of .service files.
> 
> I'll have to disagree that service files are easier.  What I do agree 
> with is that they are more consistent among distros.  The boot scripts 
> for System V are really quite easy to read and, if needed, write.
> 
>   I also noticed that some packages are only shipping
>> .service(.in) files and have abandon the use of sysVinit files. 
> 
> Then they are abandoning those distros that do not use systemd such as 
> the BSDs and Devuan.  But those distros can easily add their own boot 
> scripts.  I'll note that all the BLFS packages that need boot scripts 
> have them,
> 
>> Combined with the fact that most distributions have embraced systemd 
>> as their primary or only init system let me believe that we are stuck 
>> with this piece of ever growing mutation. And as LFS is a teaching 
>> ground, it should - however reluctant - incorporated this too.
> 
> As a teaching tool, NOT using systemd is essential.  There is far too 
> much done by systemd in an opaque manner that System V demonstrates and, 
> if desired,implemented in custom ways.
> 
>> Also, the goal is that someone fire-up their basic hardware with a LFS 
>> born OS, but for testing or use in VM's development is nowadays mostly 
>> within the VM realm.
> 
> When I teach LFS in class, I always have the students use real HW, There 
> are too many things that VMs hide,
> 
>    -- Bruce
> 
Bruce,

I agree that VM's hide some issues and I do understand you position 
about systemd. Although I disagree to some level. After all, should we 
learn people how to crackup a (very) old car or the new generally 
available way using some sort of key. Just focusing only on System V is 
precisely what industries mean when they talk about "they are not being 
taught the modern technics.".
Remember the days past, the discussion of having systemd included in the 
LFS book? Eventual it was included. Now the next "new" thing maybe?

Why not using VM's when one can continue developing without having to 
reboot into an incomplete system environment. Also, if one has multiple 
systems to spare, bare metal can be a way. If not, VM's are a welcome 
solution.

So, I think that I am chasing the wrong ghost and have a talk with the 
systemd developers instead. Despite the lack of interest for using VM's, 
I shall share any positive result with the LFS list.

Regards, Frans.


More information about the lfs-support mailing list