Arch Linux

enihcam

Member

From: Internet

Registered: 2009-12-20

Posts: 222

we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

or at least one version behind?

I believe many of us out there are running arch on servers like me. I love arch running on servers but just need the core packages to be more LTS-ish.

eg. v260 is coming but it deprecates sysv scripts. I have UPS monitor service written in sysv.

killertofus

Member

Registered: 2025-02-10

Posts: 177

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

make a feature request https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … d/-/issues

---

I Have Linux Perl Can i Download Gnome???

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 13,712

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

Everyone has known that was coming, really ever since systemd started getting adopted. If you've put off migrating this long, it's not systemd's issue. Arch already uses the stable releases, which is currently 260.

but just need the core packages to be more LTS-ish.

That's a very non-rolling-release attitude. That's not Arch at all.

Last edited by Scimmia (2026-03-19 01:26:14)

gromit

Administrator

From: Germany

Registered: 2024-02-10

Posts: 1,519

Website

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

What difference does it make to have the same work but half a year later? You'll need to migrate away from that anyways

dimich

Member

From: Kharkiv, Ukraine

Registered: 2009-11-03

Posts: 577

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

I have UPS monitor service written in sysv.

There is a big chance that sysv service can be easily ported to systemd.

mithrial

Member

Registered: 2017-03-05

Posts: 149

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

The idea for dropping support of sysv scripts is ten years old. In December 2025, they announced that it will be finally removed from systemd.

mpan

Member

Registered: 2012-08-01

Posts: 1,593

Website

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

Maintaining a PKGBUILD fo systemd-stable in AUR would be the first step. That would show if the idea flies and make it visible to package maintainers. I believe this is in line with the guidelines: systemd-stable is a separate line officially maintained by the upstream.

As noted by others, however, keeping old versions as a systematic behavior has never seen endorsement from Arch. There are exceptional situations, like dependencies⁽¹⁾ or delays due to unexpected, serious breaking changes.⁽²⁾ There are also packages with version that are ahead of stable.⁽³⁾ LTS versions are not about keeping things old. They’re both about freezing API for developers and about guaranteeing updates for time much longer than the standard release cycle. LTS versions will often outlive multiple releases in the non-LTS line(s). Systemd-stable is not an LTS release.
____
⁽¹⁾ For example electron, currently from 31 to 39, or JRE from 8 to 25, or GTK or Qt libraries.
⁽²⁾ E.g. dovecot 2.3, because 2.4 suddenly introduced configuration changes that both require a major, complicated rewrite of configs and block access to some features.
⁽³⁾ nginx-mainline vs stable nginx.

Last edited by mpan (2026-03-19 13:49:33)

---

Paperclips in avatars? | Sometimes I seem a bit harsh — don’t get offended too easily!

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 13,712

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

Maintaining a PKGBUILD fo systemd-stable in AUR would be the first step. That would show if the idea flies and make it visible to package maintainers. I believe this is in line with the guidelines: systemd-stable is a separate line officially maintained by the upstream.

That would be a terrible name, though, as the current stable branch is what Arch already packages.

mpan

Member

Registered: 2012-08-01

Posts: 1,593

Website

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

I agree, but that’s how the upstream calls it.

---

Paperclips in avatars? | Sometimes I seem a bit harsh — don’t get offended too easily!

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 13,712

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

No, they don't

Allan

Pacman

From: Brisbane, AU

Registered: 2007-06-09

Posts: 11,672

Website

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

yes they do...

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/releases

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/releases/tag/v259.5

---

PGP Key: F99FFE0FEAE999BD | I develop pacman - buy me a drink!

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 13,712

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

That repo:
A. Has multiple branches for each version, it's not it's own thing.
B. Is semi-abandoned as newer versions are branches in the main systemd repo.

Allan

Pacman

From: Brisbane, AU

Registered: 2007-06-09

Posts: 11,672

Website

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

I edited my post while your replied to link to the currently maintained "systemd-stable" branches in the systemd repo.

---

PGP Key: F99FFE0FEAE999BD | I develop pacman - buy me a drink!

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 13,712

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

Branches which are called v260-stable, v259-stable, etc, not 'systemd-stable'. And which Arch is already packaging from.

Last edited by Scimmia (2026-03-19 14:19:29)

gromit

Administrator

From: Germany

Registered: 2024-02-10

Posts: 1,519

Website

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 13,712

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

Which is the link I was replying to in https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 7#p2291247. That repo is no longer relevant.

seth

Member

From: Won't reply 2 private help req

Registered: 2012-09-03

Posts: 74,658

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

"systemd-yore", but this really doesn't address https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 6#p2291226
stall systemd locally, migrate your sysv scripts and then update.

Postponing the changes will not prevent them and you'd at worst face the a shitload of incompatibilities and headaches when jumping from systemd-256 to systemd-384, especially because "systemd" is more like "lennarts grabbag" and the update covers a wide array of functions.
Not (effectively) re-installing or setting aside a week(end) for a major version upgrade is kinda the point of a RR distro, so you probably didn't want to?

---

How to upload text · How to boot w/o GUI · Disable Windows Fast-Start! · Fix your xinitrc

tekstryder

Member

Registered: 2013-02-14

Posts: 509

Re: we might need systemd-stable as LTS alternative to systemd

That repo:
A. Has multiple branches for each version, it's not it's own thing.
B. Is semi-abandoned as newer versions are branches in the main systemd repo.

To reinforce Scimmia here see the announcement from almost 2yrs ago:

• https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob … table/NEWS

          * Stable releases for version v256 and newer will now be pushed in the
          main repository. The systemd-stable repository will be used for existing
          stable branches (v255-stable and lower), and when they reach EOL it will
          be archived.

Coincidentally, and for the OP, in the same release notes:

         * Support for System V service scripts is deprecated and will be
          removed in a future release. Please make sure to update your software
          *now* to include a native systemd unit file instead of a legacy
          System V script to retain compatibility with future systemd releases.

As others have noted... a decade of heads-up, and repeated reminders should have sufficiently weened folks off their archaic scripts.