[systemd-devel] [PATCH] kernel-install/90-loaderentry.install: fix cmdline parsing

-3.17.1-304.fc21.x86_64 Could not determine the kernel command line parameters. Please specify the kernel command line in /etc/kernel/cmdline! This commit alters the read command to correctly populate the $line array instead. Signed-off-by: Michael Chapman m...@very.puzzling.org --- src/kernel

[systemd-devel] [PATCH] timer: reenable TIMER_ACTIVE timers when restarted

A timer configured with OnActiveSec will start its associated unit again if the timer is stopped, then started. However, if the timer unit is restarted -- with systemctl restart, say -- this does not occur. This commit ensures that TIMER_ACTIVE timers are re-enabled whenever the timer is started,

[systemd-devel] Scope units get SIGKILL when stopped, not SIGTERM

Hello, When I stop a scope unit, it looks like all processes in it get a SIGKILL immediately, not a SIGTERM. I believe this issue has been brought up before in http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-October/024452.html, but there was no resolution then. That thread

Re: [systemd-devel] Scope units get SIGKILL when stopped, not SIGTERM

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Lennart Poettering wrote: The only solution that will really fix this for good is probably to move things to the new unified cgroup controller logic that finally gives us useful ways to get notifications for cgroups running empty. Also see what I just replied here:

Re: [systemd-devel] TimeoutStopSec is ignored (regression)

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, David Herrmann wrote: Hi On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Ross Lagerwall rosslagerw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On recent versions of systemd, unit_kill_context doesn't set wait_for_exit to true which means that service_enter_signal sends SIGTERM, immediately moves into

Re: [systemd-devel] is-enabled does not work

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Cecil Westerhof wrote: ​When executing on a Debian system: systemctl is-enabled atd.service I get:​ Failed to issue method call: No such file or directory On a openSUSE system it works without a hitch. What could be the reason it does not work on the Debian systems?

Re: [systemd-devel] [packaging] split of systemd package

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Lukáš Nykrýn wrote: Hi, During systemd.conf we have discussed some recommendation for downstreams, how they could split systemd to subpackages, so lets continue that discussion here. Personally I don't think it makes sense to split the package to get a smaller core

Re: [systemd-devel] How does systemd discover template instances?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Stuart Longland wrote: Assuming I have a few files distributed in the base package: /lib/systemd/system/comms-drivers.service /lib/systemd/system/comms-drivers@.service Ordinarily, one would tell systemd about template instances by creating symbolic links.

[systemd-devel] The $network LSB facility in initscripts

Hi all, I was looking into how the $network LSB facility name was handled by systemd-sysv-generator, in particular with its interaction with network-pre.target. I think the generator might be missing a couple of cases. Currently we have "Provides: $network" translated into:

Re: [systemd-devel] journald does not support syslog?

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015, dE wrote: Hello all! As per the systemd-journald man page, It creates and maintains structured, indexed journals based on logging information that is received from a variety of sources: Simple system log messages, via the libc syslog(3) call Unfortunately I did

Re: [systemd-devel] journald does not support syslog?

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015, dE wrote: Yes, I got that socket (/run/systemd/journal/dev-log). However /dev/log is not present (it's not made by default) It should be, the unit contains: [Socket] ... Symlinks=/dev/log ... - Michael ___ systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] hostname can be changed without permission checks

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015, Michał Zegan wrote: Hello. It seems that I am able to change a hostname with hostnamectl set-hostname name without any problems, even logged in as unprivileged user, and I did not get any authentication requests. I did not modify polkit rules to allow this, not sure about

Re: [systemd-devel] "StandardOutput=console" don't work as expected

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, Reindl Harald wrote: Standard mailing list etiquette is to reply-to-all on which mailing-list is that the case? be assured it's NOT standard on the majority on most it is considered rude OK. I'm not going to argue the matter. > i am asking for StandardOutput=console

Re: [systemd-devel] "StandardOutput=console" don't work as expected

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, Martin Pitt wrote: Reindl Harald [2015-12-30 11:35 +0100]: in the first mail i wrote: "migrate cronjobs to systemd-units for using ReadOnlyDirectory and other security otpions" OK, I suggest to use systemd-run -t then, like Michael Chapman already suggested. T

Re: [systemd-devel] "StandardOutput=console" don't work as expected

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 30.12.2015 um 10:50 schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas: On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Reindl Harald > wrote: Do you really have cronjobs which need to output stuff to ssh ptys?

Re: [systemd-devel] about systemd-logind

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, yan...@iscas.ac.cn wrote: yeah, I compare it to ubuntu.It also can not work. Hello, I suggest that this is probably something you need to bring up on Ubuntu's bug tracker rather than here on the systemd mailing list. If you have pam_systemd installed (via the

Re: [systemd-devel] why does bootctl default to /boot and not to /boot/efi?

On Sun, 29 May 2016, Barry Scott wrote: I just came across the bootctl command. Atleast on Fedora 23 and 24 it errors out because /boot is not FAT EFI. I thought that if you are EFI then the EFI was always in /boot/efi. Is there something I'm missing or is the default path wrong on Fedora? I

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd user sessions?

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Jon Stanley wrote: I'd like a systemd unit (and only that unit) to be controlled by a specific user. The unit runs as this user, so I thought about user instances of systemd. This service should be started when the system starts, so you'd have to enable linger in

Re: [systemd-devel] Targeting `systemd --user` for a distributed app without root access: dead-end or neat?

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, sba...@catern.com wrote: Hugues Malphettes writes: [...] So what is the future for this part of systemd? Not being a systemd developer, I can only hope that systemd --user stays around; it's a great movement in the right direction, of putting more

Re: [systemd-devel] Shutdown a specific service in systemd shutdown

On Thu, 19 May 2016, Bao Nguyen wrote: Hi everyone, When the system is shutdown, systemd will terminate all services in parallel manner, could you let me know if there is any ways to tell systemd to shutdown a specific service first, then shutdown all remaining services? Hello, I haven't

Re: [systemd-devel] Question about changing systemd target during boot

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: [...] So here goes what I've done: 1. Create a service and put it in the network-online.target: /etc/systemd/system/change-target.service: [Unit] Description=Change Target Wants=network-online.target After=network-online.target [Service]

Re: [systemd-devel] Question about changing systemd target during boot

On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Michael Chapman <m...@very.puzzling.org> wrote: On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: [...] So here goes what I've done: 1. Create a service and put it in the network-online.target: /etc/systemd/system/

Re: [systemd-devel] sigpwr.target - intended usage?

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 18.07.16 14:00, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: 2016-07-18 13:54 GMT+02:00 Lennart Poettering : On Mon, 18.07.16 13:37, Michael Biebl (mbi...@gmail.com) wrote: Apparently SIGPWR is used by lxc-stop to

Re: [systemd-devel] Timer: time format

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, arnaud gaboury wrote: I am really sorry for this post as this may sound like a trivial one, but honestly the timer topic is difficult to understand for me (at least the time format). I am looking to run a service twice a day, never mind the time. I understand I must use

Re: [systemd-devel] Timer: time format

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, arnaud gaboury wrote: Do I have to add: Persistent=true and an OnBootSec entry ? OnUnitActiveSec= without OnBootSec= is a bit problematic... if you never start the service manually (or have something else in systemd start it), then the OnUnitActiveSec= directive is

Re: [systemd-devel] Query regarding NOTIFY_SOCKET

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Raghavendra. H. R wrote: Does it mean that only services can notify systemd about their readiness and systemd will not notify another service. The "notify" in Type=notify has nothing to do with notifications *between* units. The Type= directive's only purpose is to tell

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd 210 - mount/umount/remount

On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: [...] And how would a remount command (for read only or read write) look like? There isn't any. Use `mount`. FWIW, I'm pretty sure "systemctl reload var-backup.mount" will remount the filesystem. You probably want to avoid "restart"

Re: [systemd-devel] after=user.slice not enforced

On Thu, 24 Nov 2016, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:14:34 +0100 schrieb Cédric BRINER : Hi, For the context, we are trying to stop a daemon launched by a user... Hi, sapRunning service contains a "After=user.slice". But at the shutdown, a process

Re: [systemd-devel] WorkingDirectory=~ not interpreted by systemd

[Accidentally replied off-list: resending here.] On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Benoit SCHMID wrote: What am I doing wrong, when I set WorkingDirectory=~ ? Thanks in advance for your answers. PS: # systemctl --version -> systemd 219 Support for WorkingDirectory=~ was added in systemd v227. - Michael

Re: [systemd-devel] automount unit that never fails?

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Bjørn Forsman wrote: Hi systemd developers, My name is Bjørn Forsman and this is my first post to this list. I have a question/issue with the behaviour of (auto)mount units. When a mount unit fails (repeatedly), it takes the corresponding automount unit down with it. To me

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-timesyncd with read-only root filesystem

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, André Hartmann wrote: [...] Which confuses me is the inconsistency between "systemctl status systemd.timesyncd" and "timedatectl status": # systemctl status systemd.timesyncd * systemd.timesyncd.service Loaded: not-found (Reason: No such file or directory) Active:

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-timesyncd with read-only root filesystem

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, André Hartmann wrote: Hi Michael, Am 09.12.2016 um 10:25 schrieb Michael Chapman: On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, André Hartmann wrote: [...] > Which confuses me is the inconsistency between > "systemctl status systemd.timesyncd" and "timedatectl status"

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-timesyncd with read-only root filesystem

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Michael Chapman wrote: [...] Your'e right, I had a typo. But after checking again, I discovered the following: cat /etc/systemd/system/sysinit.target.wants/systemd-timesyncd (empty) But systemctl status systemd-timesyncd says active (running) The link structure

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-timesyncd with read-only root filesystem

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, André Hartmann wrote: Hi Michael, Am 09.12.2016 um 12:43 schrieb Michael Chapman: On Fri, 9 Dec 2016, Michael Chapman wrote: [...] > You will need to use the .service extension on at least the first of > those links. systemd will only consider links in that dir

Re: [systemd-devel] Best way to limit per-user system-wide units

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, Samuel Williams wrote: Reindl, I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure I understand what the alternative you are proposing is, are you suggesting I use su? Putting aside the issue of having users link their own units into the system configuration -- as

Re: [systemd-devel] Best way to limit per-user system-wide units

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, Samuel Williams wrote: [...] The nice thing about sudo is that it is a general framework that is well tested, well documented, and works everywhere... polkit, less so. Even with the best of intentions, looking at how well people have managed to script security features (e.g.

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-journald: prioritize system log over user log

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Yunchih Chen wrote: Hello: At my organization, there can be hundreds of user logins in a public workstation each day, among more than one thousand of users. Since each user login produces a 8MiB sparse log file in /var/log/journal/x/, significant disk space is

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: [...] I am sorry, but XFS is really broken here. All init systems since time began kinda did the same thing when shutting down: a) try to unmount all fs that can be unmounted b) for the remaining ones, try to remount ro (the root fs usually

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Michael Chapman <m...@very.puzzling.org> wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: That said, are you s

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what we want there? it appears to also pause any further writes to disk (until FITHAW is called). So, I am still puzzled why

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 10.04.17 17:21, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: Or, I think, when pivoting back to the shutdown-initramfs. (Though then you also need the shutdown-initramfs to run `fsfreeze`, I guess?) No, I don't think it should be done

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 10.04.17 19:38, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> wrote: 03.04.2017 07:56, Chris Murphy пишет: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Michael Chapman <m...@very.puzzling.org> wrote: I am not a filesystem developer (IANAF

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it needs more than the guarantees provided by sync. Informally speaking, the FIFREEZE ioctl is intended

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 10.04.17 16:14, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is reall

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: Don't forget, they've provided an interface

Re: [systemd-devel] Significant performance loss caused by commit a65f06b: journal: return -ECHILD after a fork

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Wed, 12.07.17 09:53, Florian Weimer (f...@deneb.enyo.de) wrote: * Lennart Poettering: Where was this discussed in detail? Do you have any links about the discussions about this? It was on libc-alpha and the glibc bug tracker. Link? Lennart

Re: [systemd-devel] Significant performance loss caused by commit a65f06b: journal: return -ECHILD after a fork

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Tue, 11.07.17 12:55, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote: On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 09:35 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Normally it's dead cheap to check that, it's just reading and comparing one memory location. It's a pitty that this

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Thu, 06.07.17 09:36, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: User=0day fails a syntactic validation, not a semantic validation. systemd never even checks to see whether the user exists when the unit is loaded. And nor should

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Thu, 06.07.17 13:21, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:43:32AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: well, it even don't look but pretend it can't while

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Kai Krakow wrote: [...] The bug here is that a leading number will "convert" to the number and it actually runs with the UID specified that way: 0day = 0, 7days = 7. No, this is not the case. Only all-digit User= values are treated as UIDs.

Re: [systemd-devel] Significant performance loss caused by commit a65f06b: journal: return -ECHILD after a fork

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, vcap...@pengaru.com wrote: In doing some casual journalctl profiling and stracing, it became apparent that `journalctl -b --no-pager` runs across a significant quantity of logs, ~10% of the time was thrown away on getpid() calls due to commmit a65f06b. As-is: # time

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Kai Krakow wrote: Am Sat, 8 Jul 2017 08:05:44 +0200 schrieb Kai Krakow <hurikha...@gmail.com>: Am Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:39:02 +1000 (AEST) schrieb Michael Chapman <m...@very.puzzling.org>: On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Kai Krakow wrote: [...] The bug here is that a le

Re: [systemd-devel] Significant performance loss caused by commit a65f06b: journal: return -ECHILD after a fork

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 10.07.17 21:51, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: This all stems from my experiences with PulseAudio back in the day: People do not grok the effect of fork(): it only duplicates the invoking thread, not any other threads

Re: [systemd-devel] Significant performance loss caused by commit a65f06b: journal: return -ECHILD after a fork

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Sat, 08.07.17 16:24, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, vcap...@pengaru.com wrote: In doing some casual journalctl profiling and stracing, it became apparent that `journalctl -b --no-pager` runs across

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 10.07.17 21:15, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: Now, I do think that systemd has the duty to complain about any system user names outside of the safe range. Not only for security reasons, but also for portability

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

In Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 05.07.2017 um 12:10 schrieb Michael Chapman: On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Colin Guthrie wrote: > Reindl Harald wrote on 04/07/17 19:50: > > > When new configuration options are added, the same unit file can > > > almost always be us

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Colin Guthrie wrote: Reindl Harald wrote on 04/07/17 19:50: When new configuration options are added, the same unit file can almost always be used with older systemd, and it'll just warn & ignore the parts it doesn't understand. Similarly, various configuration options might

Re: [systemd-devel] Is there a reason to run systemd Units with root access?

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Mariusz Wojcik wrote: Hi, I’m just asking because of the latest “not-a-bug” [1]. As far as I know, there aren’t many services that need full root access (maybe for getting a low port number). Except for that I don’t see many use cases. Therefore, I think it would be

Re: [systemd-devel] Timeout for 'Activating (start)' status

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Mikhail Kasimov wrote: Hello! 've got an interesting trouble on timer-activated service -- 'systemctl status' returns a log with 'Activating (start)' status: [1] == k_mikhail@linux-mk500:~> systemctl status vba32update.service ● vba32update.service - VBA32

Re: [systemd-devel] Timeout for 'Activating (start)' status

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017, Mikhail Kasimov wrote: 06.07.2017 17:18, Michael Chapman пишет: On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Mikhail Kasimov wrote: Hello! 've got an interesting trouble on timer-activated service -- 'systemctl status' returns a log with 'Activating (start)' status: [1] == k_mikhail@linux

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 01:43:32AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: well, it even don't look but pretend it can't while it does which is the worst type of operations possible - as long as "adduser" of the underlying OS accepts and create

Re: [systemd-devel] Github systemd issue 6237

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 18:39:15 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Essentially, User=0day is the same as Usre=0day and the same as User="my name is pretty!". I think this is the root of the disagreement. Systemd tries to allow units written for

[systemd-devel] Should automount units for network filesystems be Before=local-fs.target?

-fs.target. This doesn't seem like a particularly likely configuration though. Is there any other reason this change wouldn't work? -- Michael Chapman ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailma

Re: [systemd-devel] Should automount units for network filesystems be Before=local-fs.target?

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Felipe Sateler wrote: On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:53:51 +1000, Michael Chapman wrote: Hello all, At present, when systemd-fstab-generator creates an automount unit for an fstab entry, it applies the dependencies that would have been put into the mount unit into the automount

Re: [systemd-devel] Should automount units for network filesystems be Before=local-fs.target?

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Thu, 27.04.17 15:53, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: Hello all, At present, when systemd-fstab-generator creates an automount unit for an fstab entry, it applies the dependencies that would have been put into the mount unit

Re: [systemd-devel] magically disappearing filesystems

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Jérémy Rosen wrote: I'm pretty it should only be necessary to call daemon-reload before using systemctl. It warns if any source files (unit files, dropins and anything mentioned by SourcePath= in a unit) have been updated since the last reload. The fstab generator

Re: [systemd-devel] magically disappearing filesystems

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 14.06.2017 16:58, Andre Maasikas пишет: systemd: Unit xx.mount is bound to inactive unit dev-mapper-xx.device. Stopping, too. systemd: Unmounting /mountpoint... kernel: XFS (dm-22): Unmounting Filesystem systemd: Unmounted /mountpoint. systemd: Unit

Re: [systemd-devel] Should automount units for network filesystems be Before=local-fs.target?

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Sat, 29.04.17 22:04, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote: We can't really do that in the generic case, sorry. The distinction between local-fs.target and remote-fs.target mostly exists because the latter may rely on network

Re: [systemd-devel] Starting service conditionally and retrying when failure

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Camilo Aguilar wrote: you need to active your service unit when your files show up by monitoring the path using an additional path unit: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.path.html Anpother approach would be to have the unit get triggered by the

Re: [systemd-devel] Packagekit crashes

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Cristian Rodríguez wrote: El 08-09-2017 a las 16:58, Robert Washbourne escribió: On systemctl start packagekit: packagekitd[18300]: failed to setup context: metadata expire time too small, has to be at least one second I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to post,

Re: [systemd-devel] How to run forking daemon with systemd in correct way, without errors?

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, Gena Makhomed wrote: On 23.11.2017 7:45, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: This is bug in nginx code? And this bug should be fixed in nginx? But "daemon(); write_pidfile();" is common pattern used by many services and even in library functions. It may be common, but not

Re: [systemd-devel] Default reply to the mailing-list instead of sender

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Cecil Westerhof wrote: With most mailing-lists when replying with GMail a reply is default send to the mailing-list, but with this mailing-list it is default send to the sender. Would it be possible to change this? Just use the "Reply all" functionality of your email

Re: [systemd-devel] "bootctl install" on mdadm raid 1 fails

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Bjørn Forsman wrote: On 9 December 2017 at 06:56, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: [...] Firmware is unaware of MD RAID and each partition is individually and independently writable by firmware. 1. "Firmware is unaware of MD RAID". I agree. 2. "...

Re: [systemd-devel] systemctl --user user can't restart their own service?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Jeff Solomon wrote: When I run: systemctl --user daemon-reexec I see that the daemon gets a --deserialize flag in it command line on "top" but the PID is not any different. I guess I don't need the PID to change if the process picks up any changes to its unit file. The

Re: [systemd-devel] systemctl --user user can't restart their own service?

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Jeff Solomon wrote: Hi, Is it by-design that a user can't restart their own user service? If they aren't a lingering user, they'll get a new systemd instance if they completely log out and back in again. Alternatively, they can restart the running instance with:

Re: [systemd-devel] systemctl --user on RHEL -- is this a bad idea

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Jeff Solomon wrote: Hi, I would like to use a user service (systemctl --user) with systemd on RHEL7 where it has been deliberately removed. I've communicated with the RH dev who made this change who reported that I could restore the /lib/systemd/system/user@.service file

Re: [systemd-devel] systemctl --user on RHEL -- is this a bad idea

On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Jeff Solomon wrote: Hi Michael, Good to know. Do you count on lingering or on starting the user service on first login? Well, both work, but the main reason I've made this change is so that I can enable lingering on users and run persistent user-specific services.

Re: [systemd-devel] option to wait for pid file to appear

On Thu, 17 May 2018, Igor Bukanov wrote: > Hi, > > I have a service unit for nginx that uses Type=forking and PIDFile. > That works, but occasionally I see in the log a message like > > nginx.service: PID file /run/nginx/nginx.pid not readable (yet?) after > start: No such file or directory > >

Re: [systemd-devel] option to wait for pid file to appear

On Thu, 17 May 2018, Igor Bukanov wrote: > On 17 May 2018 at 12:07, Michael Chapman <m...@very.puzzling.org> wrote: > > It _is_ better for the PID file to be written out before the initial > > process exits, but systemd will handle things correctly even if they > >

Re: [systemd-devel] getgroups returning a diferent result

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Jérémy Rosen wrote: > Partial answer, I don't know all the details... > > We are all taught in school that each unix user belongs to to a certain number > of groups, and that is defined in /etc/passwd. > > That's kinda true, but it's an oversimplification. > > Each PROCESS

Re: [systemd-devel] option to wait for pid file to appear

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Igor Bukanov wrote: > On 18 May 2018 at 19:37, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Do, 17.05.18 22:54, Igor Bukanov (i...@mir2.org) wrote: > > Well, no. The protocol is clear, and what we do is pretty close to > > black magic, and still racy in many ways. > > > > I mean, broken

Re: [systemd-devel] SSL handshake error from offlineimap when using systemd to initialize

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018, Yubin Ruan wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 01:54:36PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: On So, 21.01.18 19:12, Yubin Ruan (ablacktsh...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi, I use offlineimap to synchronize my emails. I want it to do a synchronization at system startup so recently I add a

Re: [systemd-devel] systemctl is-active command returns inactive even if the unit does not exist

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Kevin Hsu wrote: Hi folks, "systemctl is-active" command gives "inactive" no matter the unit exists and indeed inactive or it just not exist. This behavior is semantically true since a unit can never be active if it does not exist. But "systemctl is-enabled" command will

Re: [systemd-devel] Again, why this strange behavior implied by "auto" in fstab ?

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Thomas Blume wrote: [...] Suppressing the auto mount when a device (re)appears, is usually desired during some administrative tasks. What about lowering the hurdle for administrators by introducing a new systemctl command? Maybe something like: systemctl lock $DEVICE We

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-sysusers

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 05.02.2018 um 06:56 schrieb Michael Chapman: On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, Johannes Ernst wrote: It appears systemd-sysusers does not create home directories. On the other hand, it picks (largely unpredictable) UIDs from a range. So I have to run systemd

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd-sysusers

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, Johannes Ernst wrote: It appears systemd-sysusers does not create home directories. On the other hand, it picks (largely unpredictable) UIDs from a range. So I have to run systemd-sysusers, and after that, find the UID of the user and chown the home directory? Or is there

Re: [systemd-devel] Restarting a service as user instead as root

On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Cecil Westerhof wrote: > 2018-08-13 11:51 GMT+02:00 Michael Chapman : > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Cecil Westerhof wrote: > > > I have a service that is run as a different user as root. But only root > > can > > > restart the service. Is th

Re: [systemd-devel] Restarting a service as user instead as root

On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Cecil Westerhof wrote: > I have a service that is run as a different user as root. But only root can > restart the service. Is there a way to make 'systemctl restart' work for > the user that runs the service? You could simply add some Sudo rules allowing the user to perform

Re: [systemd-devel] When does a systemctl start ... returns to prompt?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Wojtek Swiatek wrote: > Le mer. 29 août 2018 à 10:03, Michael Chapman a > écrit : > > Thank you for the clarification. > > > > > Question 2: how can I configure the prog_two/prog_three case, i.e. having > > > them starting one afte

Re: [systemd-devel] When does a systemctl start ... returns to prompt?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, Wojtek Swiatek wrote: > Hello everyone > > systemctl start myserv.service sometimes immediately returns to the shell > prompt and sometimes stays until the program is done. Specifically, taking > the example of two programs > > - prog_one which starts in the foreground and

Re: [systemd-devel] Restarting a systemd service with new command line options from systemctl?

On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Rick Beldin wrote: [...] > # systemctl restart systemd-udevd --debug > systemctl: unrecognized option '--debug' You would need to override the service's ExecStart= setting if you wanted to do it that way. > Is there a more supported way of doing this with systemctl for

Re: [systemd-devel] systemctl start second.service first.service

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: 12.01.2018 03:47, 林自均 пишет: How about adding an "--order" option to systemctl? With this option, systemctl will sort those units by ordering dependencies before submitting them. And why does it matter? If unit A can be started without unit B, why

Re: [systemd-devel] Stacked automount dependencies

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Kenneth Porter wrote: I need to automount a couple cifs shares on a NAS box, with one share mounted to a directory within another share: /srv/share0/share1 This probably isn't going to work the way you want. Starting the share1 automount will itself cause share0 to be

Re: [systemd-devel] Environment-variable security?

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, David Parsley wrote: > I already scrub the environment when executing external scripts, and I've > found that even after os.Unsetenv(...) the full environment is available to > all processes owned by the robot in /proc//environ. I'm a bit hesitent to enter this

Re: [systemd-devel] Requires and After

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Jérémy Rosen wrote: > > >> What's the benefit of not having After= for those services? > >I guess they can start and do their initialization in parallel with > > the service they require. > In that case, what is the benefit or Requires vs Wants ? > > I might be missing

Re: [systemd-devel] Requires and After

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 07:14:10PM +1100, Michael Chapman wrote: [...] > > The problem is that it's not necessarily clear _which_ ordering dependency > > is required. systemd can't just assume one way or the other. >

Re: [systemd-devel] Requires and After

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:22 AM James Feeney wrote: > > systemd has two different classes of "dependencies": 1) "activation" > > dependencies, and 2) "ordering" dependencies. > > > > An activation dependency does not, a priori, have to obey any rules

Re: [systemd-devel] Requires and After

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Jérémy Rosen wrote: > > > In my opinion, I don't think the extra inconsistency we get from this is > > worth it. It literally only saves one line in a unit file. > > > It's not about saving a line in the unit file, it's about avoiding errors on > the most common case > > i.e

Re: [systemd-devel] Requires and After

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 12:05:46PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Evverx suggested I ask here @ > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/11284 > > It's about Requires and After. I think a unit in Requires should imply

  1   2   >