As I am not a user of this distribution, I do not know if this change has already been applied or is in the future, but let's see what they think.
In former times the philosophy of system administration in ArchLinux it boiled down to a single general configuration file: the /etc/rc.conf. This file contained all the configuration information for the basic system to work, it was edited:
- Time zone
- The system clock (Local or UTC, local will be depreciated soon)
- The keyboard map, the console font, the console character map
- The locale (language, regionalization) with which the system was configured
- The kernel modules that were loaded manually
- Use of storage technologies such as RAID, BTRFS file system, LVM
- Host name configuration
- Configuration of (local ip or DHCP)
- The DAEMONS or system daemons to load
Well, all that is not going to be like that anymore. The next big change looming in ArchLinux is to stop using this centralized file and configure the different areas of the system in separate files and directories. And why this? the short answer is for systemd the alternative bootloader to initscriptsAs systemd, apart from replacing the boot management, it also helps to administer the system itself, making it easier to administer the system, although it may seem otherwise.
The configuration would be as follows:
| Setting | New configuration files | Old location in /etc/rc.conf |
|---|---|---|
| Host name | / etc / hostname / etc / hosts | NETWORKING |
| Console fonts and keyboard map | /etc/vconsole.conf | LOCATION |
| Local settings | /etc/locale.conf /etc/locale.gen | LOCATION |
| Time zone | / etc / timezone / etc / localtime | LOCATION |
| Hardware Clock | / etc / adjtime | LOCATION |
| Kernel modules | /etc/modules-load.d/ | HARDWARE |
| daemons | /etc/rc.conf | DAEMONS |
Basically the /etc/rc.conf remains as a manager DAEMONS nothing else absolutely all other parts will be replaced by these configuration files.
The note in the original language
http://dottorblaster.it/2012/07/arch-linux-addio-ad-rc-conf-kiss/
regards
As Arch is becoming very mainstream, we will complicate things a bit for users.
Yes, sure, that was why. ¬¬
+1
Good info for those of us who are starting to use Archlinux. I was surprised when I was going to edit /etc/rc.conf and there were not those parameters that I had to edit in my installation guide, I had to check the wiki and do it again.
Wow, now to edit 9 files to do what was done with one before. I will miss my dear rc.conf. 🙁
Although I still don't have to miss it because I haven't tried the new ISO yet and in my current installation the rc.conf is still as usual. 😀
Learn to count, idiot, that's 10 files.
And with that attitude and education, are you a collaborator of two sites and a student of GE? You're screwed.
He's talking to himself and I don't notice a malicious attitude ...
Haha that's right, I was just making fun of myself. 😀
I would more like it to remain just one, but if it should be ... although, something seems strange to me ... If rc.conf will only contain daemons, why not call it daemons.conf or something like that? It doesn't make much sense to keep calling rc.conf if you only configure one thing ...
To avoid modifying the processes that call rc.conf.
Don't be offended, but I hate the copy-paste of articles and even more so when they do not include a link to the original article: Anyway the copy-paste It is not justified or including the link, but at least let's honor who deserves it: http://www.rafaelrojas.net/2012/07/27/adios-al-etcrc-conf/
What is the problem, I do not understand? The objective has not been to appropriate the article or anything like that, indeed, if Rafael Rojas feels alluded to by the "Copy / Paste" that he tells us and at the moment we change the edition or withdraw the article. Also, it seems to me that in the article there is a link (which was the one that Alf apparently saw) and this in turn, has another link to the site you mention ..
If Rafael Rojas feels in any way offended, upset, or has any kind of disagreement, please let us know and we will take the appropriate measures.
Greetings friend.
No, I am not offended 😀
The link to the post you make anyway makes a link to my blog.
If you take info directly from my blog, no problem, a link to the blog is appreciated, it is not mandatory, but mere courtesy.
regards
I already have those files configured. But I still can't decide to delete the old rc.conf. As additional info in the forum a very interesting thread was opened on this topic.
I don't like this one bit, precisely one of the things I liked the most about Arch is that, in a single file I configured everything or almost everything ... no way, I don't like this change.
But it is not a question of Arch, but as the article says, of systemd. And we already know that Arch likes to work as the original software was designed.
But that does not complicate things and conflicts with the idolized KISS? xD
Well, a few days ago I installed Arch Linux in a VB with the new iso following the guide of my namesake @gespadas and this would have been good for me 🙂
Good info 😉
This info is missing there to complete the tutorial, you should, @gespadas in your guide, link to this article so that it is a guide as complete as possible. 🙂
All the best
I know this step was inevitable because it is necessary for the systemd implementation, but it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth because it loses a lot of Arch's genius when configuring it, from its centralized /etc/rc.conf file. Of course Arch is not just /etc/rc.conf/ but this file was an important part of his personality ...
Bye bye /etc/rc.conf, we will miss you!
But according to the news on the official page: http://www.archlinux.org/news/changes-to-rcconf-and-crypttab/
"The old format is still supported, so old config files should still work unchanged."
so at the moment I don't think it bothers me much.
This note was given in at least 3 places, so we must accuse everyone, I am also waiting for Rafael's response, if he says that the format or content should be changed because the thread is done or deleted and that's it, also in the link that I put reference is made to Rafael's blog.
Another thing, I have the permission of other people to share information from their blogs, and as they told me, "I don't care about having credit, what matters to me is that knowledge is spread."
regards
Amen ………… there are authors very jealous of their content
Perhaps what bothers people directly is that the article itself is a copy-paste. I have had many articles "copypasted" made in DesdeLinux, especially those on Steam, and yes, they include the source but they are totally and completely identical to the ones I write. It's not something that makes me angry or upsets me, but at least I have the habit of putting the sources at the beginning of the post, with my own comments and at the end as well, just to clarify that the post itself is not entirely mine. . So, I always add something to the re-posts I make.
Ehm, it was the only good thing that archlinux had left, now if it is 100% crap, and the only one that is still BSD style in its scripts, is the only one and never well imitated, Gentoo!
So Arch was only good for a config file? That's not Arch !, take a look at his Wiki to see what he is. And by the way, Gentoo is not the only one with BSD startup, there is the oldest existing distro which is Slackware.
Puff. With this they screwed me big, I'm going to prepare my move to fedora or ubuntu, it's tragic that arch changes so drastically one of his best points
If you already have Arch installed, why change? It is something that does not directly affect you unless you reinstall. By the way, that will not harm the operating system, do not be so dramatic xD
How strange that your options are Fedora and Ubuntu, distros with totally different objectives than Arch. It is clear that Arch was not what you were looking for.
I'm taking note, surely chakra project will take this same measure soon and I'll be up to date 😀 on the chakra forums he says a lot about systemd and the great benefits it will bring. Nor do I worry sure a good blog about linux will bring out a good guide and if not sure the arch wiki.
The change to systemD is mandatory means, soon it will be a dependency of the kernel since systemd and udev were merged, I have systemd installed in my file and only the improvement in the boot speed is worth the change
If you want to be up-to-date in everything you have to adapt to the changes necessary for it. Other distributions don't change as much because they update more slowly. I think that is the most negative point of Arch, having to constantly be aware of new changes in the system. Rolling Release !! friends…
Exactly, what for some is negative for others not, some feel more control over the system, others may feel that it is more cumbersome.
Recalling for example KZKG ^ Gaara (as there may be more cases), the arch failed and there was no way to fix the damage, in a work machine you cannot afford to spend time looking for the solution.
I'm not saying that arch is bad, I'm just saying that everyone has their point of view.
For tastes colors.
regards