"Fattening" antiX and no systemd

Message
Author
User avatar
dreamer
Posts: 738
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:34 am

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#11 Post by dreamer »

eye_of_man wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:07 pm I have been thinking the same thing re: "fattening" antiX. I had a bit of spare time this past weekend and was able to build up a MX "lookalike" in a VM starting with an antiX-core install, then adding XFCE, etc. It's still systemd free, though care must be taken to ensure that libsystemd0 is not installed. I haven't tested it extensively, but everything I've tried works. Just for grins I also added on a subset of the MX tools. Currently I have this sitting in a VM, but I plan to put it on a live USB and tinker some more with it.

Here's a tiny screenshot (I had to scale the png down, the original was apparently too large to be attached):
antiX-mimicking-MX18.png

Edit: link to pasteboard for better view of the above screenshot:
https://pasteboard.co/HZP5nDg.png
Looks really nice. :number1: I think there may be "demand" for something like this if you feel like releasing it.

User avatar
asqwerth
Developer
Posts: 7213
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:37 am

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#12 Post by asqwerth »

manyroads wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:50 pm Not that anyone asked, :p but I personally think there might be something to moving into a systemd free environment. ALTHOUGH a systemd-free Debian flies in the face of where Debian is 'officially'. I asked/ implied, much to some folks dismay, that Devuan might be a logical base if things here were to go systemd-free. I was newer and that idea wasn't awfully popular. :footinmouth: I do not have the answer or even an answer. ...
I still don't understand your question, to be honest. If MX was to go full systemd free, why would we use Devuan as a base instead of antiX?
Desktop: Intel i5-4460, 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400

User avatar
figueroa
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:20 am

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#13 Post by figueroa »

Opinion:
1. Fattening antiX to suit one's taste makes a lot more sense to me that slimming down MX. MX isn't that fat to start with, but it is XFCE-centric so if you want something else, it makes sense to start with less and build up.
2. MX is also Debian stable-based and that means there is going to be systemd, even if it isn't used as the init. Debian brings the largest installed base of software and is widely supported by upstream software. Devuan hasn't caught on and can't ba assumed to be Debian compatible. It's time to stop beating that horse.
3. It doesn't particularly make good sense to me to not just be happy with what MX brings to the table. It's popular for many good reasons, so the desire to install it and change it to something else may not be because of an MX shortcoming but an underlying personal issue, in which case one might be happier with Gentoo or even Linux From Scratch.

Just rambling here. My main desktop is stable Gentoo with LXDE on the desktop, no systemd, no pulseaudio, etc, and it's so boring, just the way I like it. But, I have plans to deploy MX for others to use because it's just about perfect the way it is to convert others, not just away from Windows, but away from other more messy distros.
Andy Figueroa
Using Unix from 1984; GNU/Linux from 1993

skidoo
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#14 Post by skidoo »

misko-2083 wrote:For start to check for packages that depend on libsystemd0
Kids, you are barking at the moon.
"libsystemd0" is simply a utility library which provides interfaces to various systemd components
dpkg-query -L libsystemd0
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0.17.0
/usr/share/doc/libsystemd0/changelog.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/libsystemd0/copyright

If it makes you feel "all empowered" to do so, here's a potential "For start to check "(sic) for ya:

sudo mv /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0 /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0_BAK
sudo mv /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0.17.0 /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsystemd.so.0.17.0_BAK
sudo rm /usr/share/doc/libsystemd0/changelog.Debian.gz
sudo rm /usr/share/doc/libsystemd0/copyright
...then reboot to check whether your system, given the set of currently installed packages, is actually "broken".


The "check which packages depend on libsystemd0" work has already been done.
It's an ongoing effort. The source code of affected packages is modified,
libsystemd0 *systemd* dependencies removed, and systemd -free versions of the packages are placed in antiX repository.


The excercise outlined in the strikeout paragraph, above, it might enlighten you to the fact that MANY of the packages
marked by the debian package maintainer(s) as "depends on" libsystemd0, in fact only ship .service files
(configuration files which are only consulted _IF_ systemd init is in effect at runtime)

^------ Some programs do, legitimately, depend on systemd, but across recent years the too-often inappropriate//unnecessary//misleading marking by the debian package maintainers has fueled the (my) "systemd is being unnecessarily forced on us, we must push back and preserve choice" mindset.

Currently, the debian status quo is one in which many package maintainers now embrace a "systemd is now the DEFAULT debian init" outlook, along with a "I/we don't personally use, so can't/won't support NON systemd" mindset. Thankfully, during the past few months, discussions have begun toward achieving a "middle ground"
https://lwn.net/Articles/770093/
"Init system support in Debian" (Oct 2018)

. . .
Several Debian developers were ready to let bygones be bygones and welcomed any effort toward keeping sysvinit alive in Debian. Ian Jackson invited Nicosia to a new debian-init-diversity mailing list. That mailing list has been expressly set up to avoid the hostility on (some) Debian mailing lists, Jackson said. It would appear to be the place where non-systemd init systems will be discussed and developed moving forward.
. . .
Overall, the dialog was relatively positive and the outcome may well lead to better maintenance of sysvinit for both Debian and Devuan moving forward. Given a little more time (and water under the bridge), Devuan's users could provide the testbed for the init scripts, which will obviously help Devuan, but will also be a boon for any Debian users of sysvinit. There is still likely to be something of chasm between the two distributions, but any rapprochement should be welcome news to most. In truth, what separates the two is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things—the flames and acrimony notwithstanding.
With respect to copyright, I've only pasted a small excerpt from the LWN.net article.
PLEASE click and read the full article, plus the looooooooong stream of well-considered comments in the article page.

skidoo
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#15 Post by skidoo »

embellishing antiX to suit one's taste makes a lot more sense than slimming down MX
+1
that's it, in a nutshell.
use Devuan as a base instead of antiX?
fact (not puffery, not fanboism): compared to antiX, Devuan's installer and its live persistence // remastering tools are quite primitive

User avatar
asqwerth
Developer
Posts: 7213
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:37 am

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#16 Post by asqwerth »

I do wonder whether the existence of antiX and MX, who remain on Debian repos but are currently able and want to continue using sysV init from within Debian, have had any small influence on the slight change in mindset skidoo talked about.

Of course it's still early days, but the fact that there is now a init-diversity mailing list in Debian (to which Devuan devs were invited) is good news.
Desktop: Intel i5-4460, 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400

User avatar
anticapitalista
Developer
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#17 Post by anticapitalista »

misko-2083 wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:02 pm
anticapitalista wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:07 am There may be other packages that need to be made systemd-free, but who knows.
:confused:
For start to check for packages that depend on libsystemd0
apt-cache rdepends "libsystemd0"
...
apt-cache rdepends "*systemd*"
Those are for packages already installed. I'm talking about the 42000 or so in the Debian repos. I'm not going to install them all!

Added: Seems I'm wrong about rdepends only being for installed packages.
Last edited by anticapitalista on Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

User avatar
thomasl
Posts: 414
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:26 am

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#18 Post by thomasl »

figueroa wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:05 am3. It doesn't particularly make good sense to me to not just be happy with what MX brings to the table. It's popular for many good reasons, so the desire to install it and change it to something else may not be because of an MX shortcoming but an underlying personal issue, in which case one might be happier with Gentoo or even Linux From Scratch.
Yeah, looking at gentoo certainly does make sense. I actually did so but in the end I could not find a stable, supported set of tools to do a frugal install with the same sort of persistence options antiX and MX offer, combined with the ease of producing snapshots. Maybe I was just not looking deep enough or maybe it is feasible for gentoo wizards. As antiX seems to fit the bill nicely, I've for now stopped looking at gentoo. But who knows...?
Frugal installs on Lenovo ThinkPad L14 Ryzen 5 4650U/24GB * HP Pavilion Ryzen 3 3300U/16GB * Toshiba R950 i5-3340M/12GB
I have a reservation... What do you mean it's not in the COMPUTER!

misko-2083

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#19 Post by misko-2083 »

skidoo wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:29 am
misko-2083 wrote:For start to check for packages that depend on libsystemd0
Kids, you are barking at the moon.
"libsystemd0" is simply a utility library which provides interfaces to various systemd components
Why are you starting this philosofical discussion?
We dissagree about libsystemd0, but can you get over it already Kriv?
With or without the interface both approaches are correct, Devuan and antiX.

My responce was purely of technical nature, because of all of all the guessing in this post: "may be, likely, should, who knows"
anticapitalista wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:07 am There may be some packages that you may not be able to install since they depend on systemd. This used to be the case with gnome and budgie desktop, for example.
What is more likely is that some packages may depend on libsystemd0. We at antiX have a nosystemd repo that repackages such apps e.g. samba, cups, network-manager. They *should* work without issue.
Here is a link to all the nosystemd stuff in antiX stretch. There may be other packages that need to be made systemd-free, but who knows.

http://repo.antixlinux.com/stretch/pool/nosystemd/
It was obvious that anticapitalista only guesses that some packages "may depend on libsystemd0"
and that "There may be other packages that need to be made systemd-free, but who knows."
skidoo wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:44 am
use Devuan as a base instead of antiX?
fact (not puffery, not fanboism): compared to antiX, Devuan's installer and its live persistence // remastering tools are quite primitive
At least we aggree on something.
anticapitalista wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:11 am
misko-2083 wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:02 pm
anticapitalista wrote: Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:07 am There may be other packages that need to be made systemd-free, but who knows.
:confused:
For start to check for packages that depend on libsystemd0
apt-cache rdepends "libsystemd0"
...
apt-cache rdepends "*systemd*"
Those are for packages already installed. I'm talking about the 42000 or so in the Debian repos. I'm not going to install them all!

Added: Seems I'm wrong about rdepends only being for installed packages.
This was so embarrassing for such a trivial command!
Now, I don't know wheater to laugh or cry. :spinning:
Please no more guesses in the future before digging into documentation and before you post nonsense.
I recommend the The Debian Administrator's Handbook.

User avatar
anticapitalista
Developer
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: "Fattening" antiX and no systemd

#20 Post by anticapitalista »

Go away and laugh and/or cry! I could easily have deleted my post rather than add to it.
Last edited by anticapitalista on Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

Post Reply

Return to “antiX”