Move to SystemD about meta-iot2000 HOT 8 CLOSED

Switching to systemd is imaginable, but we haven't planned for that yet, specifically not for the next version. It would require rewriting some startup scripts and adjusting the iot2000setup tool. And then testing everything. You could support that effort by sending PRs, though.

from meta-iot2000.

Just to ref:

• https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/latest/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#using-systemd-exclusively
• https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2015-December/027882.html

The following local_conf should enable systemd:

DISTRO_FEATURES_append = " systemd"
DISTRO_FEATURES_BACKFILL_CONSIDERED += "sysvinit"
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager = "systemd"
VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_initscripts = "systemd-compat-units"

Looks like there are some errors in compilation due init scripts.
Expecting .service and finding InitV scripts

from meta-iot2000.

NVM, @jan-kiszka would you like to open a branch for systemd so I can send PR there?

Also, I think that I could create a ./meta-iot2000-examples/kas-systemd.yml that extends the ./meta-iot2000-examples/kas.yml but with systemd as init. While the transition is not fully tested.

from meta-iot2000.

@deinok Just fork the project into your own namespace and issue PRs from there. That's a typical workflow pattern.

from meta-iot2000.

Yes, i know the typical workflow, I'd just want to be sure that this kind of heavy changes are going to be accepted (If they work well :) ).

from meta-iot2000.

If they work, I would be optimistic. The effort is likely as much in testing as it is in finding the places that need changes and applying them.

from meta-iot2000.

@jan-kiszka Most of the required changes are SysV init vs SystemD init mechanisms.
So, supporting both while the transition is done should not be a big problem

from meta-iot2000.

Unlikely to happen for this layer anymore.

from meta-iot2000.