Re: Buster with MATE without systemd
On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 19:55:45 -0500
David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
This is outdateded -- It's for Jessie. systemd only had a toe hold
then. It's more entrenched now with Buster. Converting Stretch to
sysvinit too only installing sysvinit. That install took care of the
rest. Not so with Buster with xorg. Sysvinit still installs and
works just fine with a terminal system though.
> 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.
Once you install a DE, getting rid of it (or parts of it) is impossible.
Too many interconnected dependencies. I know. I've tried. That's how
I learned to build a system from a basic terminal install instead.
B
Reply to: