Re: Buster with MATE without systemd
On Wed 16 Sep 2020 at 16:15:12 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:52:15 -0400
> Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:32:14AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > To make a long story short, after two or so weeks of research and
> > > numerous failed trials, I came to the conclusion that systemd has
> > > become too entrenched in the dependency tree of Buster to successfully
> > > convert to systvinit.
> >
> > If you specify "... on a desktop system", then maybe you're correct.
> >
> > For most servers, it shouldn't be an issue.
>
> The subject _was_ about desktops, MATE specifically, not servers.
>
> However, my trials with Buster was from a year ago. And I haven't
> tried a sysvinit install with it since. Perhaps some systemd
> dependencies have been eliminated. Be great if they all were! Init
> systems should never ever be dependencies.
I know little to nothing about DEs. However, I see that there are
people who run MATE without running a systemd init system. This (dated)
link makes a distinction between installation dependencies and runtime
dependencies, so I presume that you might be able to put up with the
presence of unused systemd packages in the installation.
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/279603/using-mate-desktop-without-systemd
Later:
> […] Had no problems converting to
> sysvinit with a terminal only system. First thing I did. I always
> start my installs that way and build from there. Lighter, faster, more
> efficient system without all the crud that comes with a general DE
> install.
I would certainly recommend that the OP did that, rather than
converting as an afterthought.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: