Re: Irony

[Joe <joe@jretrading.com>]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:44:31 -0400
Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:

> Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:19:00 -0700
> > koanhead <akane@freegeekseattle.org> wrote:
> >
> >> For the record, in case anyone is interested, I'm writing this
> >> from a Jessie box without systemd. It's easy to make this happen,
> >> and it works just fine as long as you don't use GNOME or MATE,
> >> possibly KDE, or those functions of other DEs that require a
> >> systemd component.
> >>
> >> All I did was use aptitude interactively to remove systemd-* and
> >> then review and adjust the solutions as necessary. Nothing broke
> >> or caught fire.
> >>
> > To the best of my knowledge, it is still necessary for a human to
> > decide to boot with systemd. One of my sid systems, fully updated
> > in the last week, is still on init. There are three that I know are
> > running systemd, I explicitly added the switch to the kernel boot
> > parameters to make this happen. I do not believe it happens
> > automatically yet.
> >
> 
> So how does this work now that udev is merged with systemd?
> 

No idea, but this is a sid updated today, ps aux | grep init returns
pid 1, /sbin/init.

I have systemd, systemd-sysv, and sysvinit installed but not
sysvinit-core. Systemd is certainly running, along with systemd-udevd,
systemd-logind and systemd-journald and no doubt has its metaphorical
fingers in a great many other pies, but it isn't in charge of boot yet.
I'm not actually bothered, but I thought I'd hold one machine back as a
control.

-- 
Joe