sysv is garbage tho. If unix philosophy is "make it do one thing and do it well", it doesn't do the one thing it is supposed to do well.

I dislike overloading systemd with tools that are not related to running services but systemd does the "run services" (and auxiliary stuff like "make sure mount service uses is up before it is started" or "restart it if it dies" and hundred other things that are very service or use-case specific) very, very well and I used maybe 4 different alternatives across last 20 years

▲

cf100clunk 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't see how this relates to removing SysVinit support from LFS. Choice is good.

▲

reppap 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you entitled to the LFS developers time? They build the system they get to make into what they want.

▲

preisschild 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That "choice" still has to be maintained. And why spend effort when you can do the same things + more with systemd?

▲

cf100clunk 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Clearly there are lots of people who don't want something that does what you say systemd does. Bravo that choice is out there, but what a pity that LFS does not seem to have the resources to test future versions for SysVinit.

	▲	PunchyHamster 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		you can fork it and do it. But frankly if goal is to learn people about how Linux works, having SysV there is opposite to that goal