Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: setting up x and systemd errors (Read 3405 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

setting up x and systemd errors

* Setting up xdm ...
/usr/bin/xdm: error while loading shared libraries: libsystemd.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
 * start-stop-daemon: failed to start `/usr/bin/xdm'
 * ERROR: could not start the Display Manager         


since when is X dependent on systemd?  Is there a link on setting up X because the packages are not doing it on their own, and I am no longer sure how it even works since they "derooted" it.

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #1 –
Please install libsystemd-dummy. They provide systemd libraries for compability reason 

Code: [Select]
~ >>> pacman -Qo /usr/lib/libsystemd.so.0                                                                                                                               

/usr/lib/libsystemd.so.0 is owned by libsystemd-dummy 233-1

If I can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!
 

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #2 –
is that the best way of doing it?

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #3 –
Unless you are able to re-write the source code for xdm I am afraid in artix this is the only way.
I downloaded xdm noticing that on the arch repositories it says systemd dependency to see what happens.  When it was installed it depended on systemd-dummy
This is why I like pamac because it is easy to see such things and monitor what happens before it happens.
systemd  and its derivatives are on the Arch-core repository, so there is no way to bring them into artix unless you make the mistake of enabling it (core).  I remember seeing a script that prevented such a mistake, but I may be wrong and it was on Devuan, 

There are tons of pkgs in extra and community that list systemd dependency.  It is the default arch init system.

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #6 –
so in essense, you can't ditch the complexity of systemd even when you ditched systemd.  How is X running on BSD?

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #7 –
I tried FreeBSD once for half an hour and decided it wasn't for me.  That does not constitute any objective criticism.
I think linux is too far developed and in a way it deserves the same criticism in the GNU sense as systemd does.
As I see it there are two major horses (stallions) pulling development, Debian and Arch, and the rest are slow work-mules-ponies.
If you want to stick to refinement of a previous stage go with the mules, or use Debian wheezy.  Otherwise struggle along the ranks of Artix and Devuan.  If you are into security-penetration-testing for your server the obstacle would be to run Kali over Devuan, or BlackArch over Artix.  I am puzzled after all the security problems systemd has revealed that such distributions are still following it.

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #8 –
Quote from: mrbrklyn – on
so in essense, you can't ditch the complexity of systemd even when you ditched systemd.

Sure you can, we just don't have a systemd free version in the repos, and the one from arch self evidently pulls systemd.

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #9 –
 
From Xorg-wiki:
Quote
The X.Org project provides an open source implementation of the X Window System. The development work is being done in conjunction with the freedesktop.org community.

Mailing lists hosted on freedesktop.org:
Quote
systemd-bugs systemd Bugzilla Mailing List
systemd-commits systemd Commits Mailing List
systemd-devel systemd Development Mailing List

From Gnome site
Quote
systemd
GNOME has a close relationship with systemd. A number of systemd features originated in the GNOME project, and ongoing collaborations ensure effective integration with this core technology.

Yet, if you look at the sponsors, you'll find the same set of "big corporate computing names" that hold the strings on top of the puppets.  Open, Free, but "directed" by huge corporate interests (and who knows who else).


This was made by some good people in Devuan but it is equally relevant and enjoyable by people in Artix I think
https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/113/

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #10 –
Quote from: fungalnet – on
If you are into security-penetration-testing for your server the obstacle would be to run Kali over Devuan, or BlackArch over Artix.  I am puzzled after all the security problems systemd has revealed that such distributions are still following it.
Because there purpose is to enable you to break the security of others, not provide you with secure system.  A better question would be why a system like TAILS (and presumably Qubes) is using systemd.

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #11 –
I have difficulty understanding the widespread acceptance of systemd in general. It seems a hugely complex and encompassing system to fix a problem that didn't really exist in the first place.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but surely there must be more to this than meets my eyes. ???

Best regards.
We should try to be kind to everyone.....we are all fighting some sort of battle.

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #12 –
Quote from: conky60 – on
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but surely there must be more to this than meets my eyes. ???

RedHat makes millions in consulting to large corps/orgs and their interests are to employee fully automated enterprise systems with as little tech-support as they can.  So they'd rather give redhat money to install systems that can cut the payroll down.
Systemd on a strict personal use pc or small lan is a nightmare of complexity but when large complex systems and networks are employed its automation is able to "self adjust" somehow ... it still drives tech-suport people nuts.

Tails relies on debian, always did, and they built ontop of debian.  They mix and match stable/testing/unstable.  Devuan could become a base for tails, but devuan is still too young and is based on old-stable.  There is heads, which is meant to be like tails but it is crappy and I don't think it can be trusted much.  Kali and parrot are on debian too.  And blackarch is on arch.  non-systemd is still a young wave of a movement and it will take time to establish itself.  Meanwhile the security issues of systemd have been clouded by propaganda and an overcast of doubt on how solid the criticism of systemd is. 

Then there is the close relationship between debian and torproject, if you haven't noticed.  Look at their site and you will see that it is full of debian based (ubuntu) information with direct access and onion address of repositories, meanwhile there is nothing on arch.  Everyone else must compile from source standalone pkgs on a monthly basis.  Even their alpha/beta repository only accomodates debian based systems.  Tails is nothing without torproject.

So all those projects are in bed by proxy with evil.

Meanwhile there was an "alternative" in the form of free-open-vpn called bitmask.  They came out with a basic vpn tool with a handful of providers and a beta version of the next step, then they vanished.  It still is out there but there is no update of what is going on.  It smells like homeland gag-order

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #13 –
Quote
non-systemd is still a young wave of a movement and it will take time to establish itself.

"A young wave of a movement"??? Hardly......everything was "non-systemd" not all that very long ago. I have been using linux for upwards of 15 years and in the "pre-systemd" era can't for the life of me remember ever having issues with init systems (SysVinit) that would justify creating this monster called "systemd".
I'm wondering what I am missing here. Maybe I'm just too old to see clearly?

Best regards.
We should try to be kind to everyone.....we are all fighting some sort of battle.

Re: setting up x and systemd errors

Reply #14 –
Quote from: conky60 – on
"....in the "pre-systemd" era can't for the life of me remember ever having issues with init systems (SysVinit) that would justify creating this monster called "systemd".
I'm wondering what I am missing here. Maybe I'm just too old to see clearly?

The goal is always the same: to control. Surely the FSF/GNU/Linux movements generated and can generate a "not controlled space" and systemd is the (first) serious option to try to control it.
Its the same for almost all the technologies that can create "free space" or "uncontrolled space", think about encryption: almost all is standardized and approved. Only for technical aspects?

The scenario that I see is that, using systemd, will be possible to transform Linux in another Windows: controlled and buggy.
DOn't forget that the bugs are MANDATORY, if you want to control, cause the bugs generate support requests and the requests generate business and the business push the system, also if its bugged and cause its bugged!
The systemd approach is perfect: practically a nonsense, from a technical point of view, but perfect.

Migrating from Manjaro/Openrc I used, for some days, Antergos. Really well built and without the bells of Manjaro, but systemd, was a nightmare: always to launch unusable operations (Create Volatile Files and Directories, Flush journal to persistent storage, Rebuild Dynamic linker Cache, Rebuild journal Catalog...). Every start up was like a lottery.

I hope that the openrc movements shall be able to consolidate; the basis are all there. The only negative aspect that I see, is that there is a too high segmentation in the openrc movements while, in this moment, should be important to concentrate the efforts.
Maybe that I'm wrong, the segmentation is one of the main advantage of Linux, I hope that it will be also for openrc.