Re: [systemd-devel] proper way for shutdown script

[Xen]

Kai Krakow schreef op 07-10-2016 9:40:

Am Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:40:52 +0200
schrieb Xen :


Xen schreef op 05-10-2016 14:37:

> And this works. But now the service must be started first before it
> will be called on shutdown... :-/.

I guess the package installer would have to start the service after
installation which would be a solution in that sense, it needs to
enable the service anyway.

Also I don't understand why /etc/init.d/libnss-ldap masks
/etc/systemd/system/libnss-ldap.service for the enable call.

It will see the init script and then call the sysv thing and will
never get to the actual service file I have created?

Thanks for your help.


You could make a path unit that watches for changes to the
configuration file and then runs the script.


Thanks. But I take it you mean to wait for changes to /etc/ldap.conf, 
however the changes need to be re-run not after changing ldap.conf, but 
after adding new system users to the system.


Any case I don't know if anyone is still going to be interested in 
fixing the issue of that package.


Whenever you offer assistance it is usually taken as a reason to 
criticize the help offered for not being entirely perfect. And you don't 
get cooperative criticism (from someone also interested in seeing the 
thing through) but rebutive criticism (from someone apparently invested 
in not seeing the thing through).


Although these were not original-maintainers but it still feels they 
treat it as a competition. And they come up with reasons as to why other 
patches in the past have been better than yours. Or why what you suggest 
is not up-to-par. When they already know how to bring it up-to-par. But 
instead of simply doing that or suggesting that as a way to get the 
thing accepted, they bring it up as a reason to reject the thing. The 
same energy expended to say what's wrong could have been expended as a 
way to make it right.


But apparently that would mean that you "win" and apparently that would 
imply that they "lose"? How offering assistence can be a form of 
competition is beyond me, but apparently that is the way it is. Because 
any statement of what could be improved is a statement of what can be 
improved is a statement of what could be wrong.


And any statement of what could be wrong could be a slap in the face of 
those who have created the thing, if put wrongly or worded differently. 
No one wants to be told that what they've created is not okay, but 
offering improvements can hardly be done without it. Any improvement is 
a statement of the inferiority of the previous thing, if put in the 
wrong light.


Anyway, too much information and maybe not relevant to the thing at 
hand. Just an observation as to how some things sometimes go. Apologies.

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] mysql open_files_limit controlled by systemd

[Lennart Poettering]

On Thu, 29.09.16 11:20, Hajo Locke (hajo.lo...@gmx.de) wrote:

> Hello List,
> 
> we found out that mysql open_files_limit ist controlled by systemd-service
> file. We used LimitNOFILE to increase default value.
> This value is always overwriting the value from my.cnf file.
> Is there a way to tell systemd to not control a service in this way so
> control completely goes back to original my.cnf values?
> At the moment i did not found a promising directive.

On Linux, RLIMIT_NOFILE may be altered freely by privileged processes,
but unprivileged processes may only lower it.

This means that as long as mysql is invoked privileged it can alter
RLIMIT_NOFILE as it likes, and systemd's setting is little more than
the default.

If mysql is invoked unprivileged (which might well be the case, I
don't know the mysql service file or the the code of mysqld), then the
systemd unit file setting LimitNOFILE will enforce an upper limit, and
mysql can only lower it from there. In this case, simply set
LimitNOFILE to a really high value: e.g LimitNOFILE=8388608 (which is
8M), so that it doesn't have too much effect.

Note that systemd's defaults for this value are just the kernel's
defaults, and there's nothing going on beyond that.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] wayland ..??!

[Reindl Harald]

Am 07.10.2016 um 04:03 schrieb Che:

I'm wondering...

Has anyone yet invoked 'wayland' as being, in fact, a most diabolical
project... by which Lennart Poettering & Co. schemingly intend to take
over the GNUnix *graphics* universe, as well..?
:D


I'm wondering what taht has to do with systemd and what have the 
systemd-developers to do with wayland?

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] wayland ..??!

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 07.10.16 10:43, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:

> I'm wondering what taht has to do with systemd and what have the
> systemd-developers to do with wayland?

Please do not feed the trolls. Just leave this as is. Thank you.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] proper way for shutdown script

[Lennart Poettering]

On Thu, 06.10.16 20:30, Xen (l...@xenhideout.nl) wrote:

> Lennart Poettering schreef op 06-10-2016 19:12:
> 
> >The way to have a process executed at shutdown is by using ExecStop=
> >and making sure the unit is started at start-up time.
> >
> >Current systemd versions permit unit files without any ExecStart= to
> >cover for this case, really old systemd versions didn't like that, in
> >which case you need to specify ExecStart=/bin/true for them.
> 
> Didn't realize this. Reason was that when I ..provided a command without
> path... it first complained about the command being invalid but also
> then that there was no ExecStart defined which was a problem to it ... ?
> 
> So I assumed at that point that I couldn't leave it out.
> 
> I have 229.

Note that ExecStart= may only be left out if a unit is of Type=oneshot
and has at least one ExecStop= set.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] proper way for shutdown script

[Kai Krakow]

Am Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:40:52 +0200
schrieb Xen :

> Xen schreef op 05-10-2016 14:37:
> 
> > And this works. But now the service must be started first before it
> > will be called on shutdown... :-/.  
> 
> I guess the package installer would have to start the service after 
> installation which would be a solution in that sense, it needs to
> enable the service anyway.
> 
> Also I don't understand why /etc/init.d/libnss-ldap masks 
> /etc/systemd/system/libnss-ldap.service for the enable call.
> 
> It will see the init script and then call the sysv thing and will
> never get to the actual service file I have created?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

You could make a path unit that watches for changes to the
configuration file and then runs the script.


-- 
Regards,
Kai

Replies to list-only preferred.

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel