On 12 March 2015 at 01:13, Don Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, The Wanderer wrote: > > Running those commands doesn't give you output from 'systemctl stop > > foo' or the like, however. > > > I thought the OP was asking how to determine, from the exit code > > and/or the console output of 'systemctl stop foo' (or a similar > > command, one that actually _alters_ the status of a service), whether > > the command actually succeeded. > > If you want to know that, then do something like: > > systemctl start foo && systemctl is-active foo; > > or > > systemctl stop foo && ! systemctl is-active foo && ! systemctl is-failed \ > foo; > > Presumably you could even write a shell function to do this if that's > something that you actually wanted. > > > You can certainly run these commands afterwards, and get the status of > > the service that way, but that's no substitute for being able to get > > output or the like directly from the original control command. > > > > Does systemd really not provide any "verbose" mode for its > > service-control commands, in which they report what they are doing? > > No. Really, all systemctl start/stop do is tell systemd to actually stop > or start the service, and optionally block until the action is > completed. > > I suppose someone could make an argument that including a verbose flag > or something might be useful, but considering that you can achieve > similar functionality with existing discrete tools, I'm not sure that > growing additional code and documentation to support such an option is > worth it. > > Look at the definition of start_unit in > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/systemctl/systemctl.c > for the current code. > > > -- > Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
Hey guys! Thanks for all the replies! I really appreciate it. Now, I'm understanding more about it, I'm fine with "is-active | is-failed" systemd options. Nevertheless, I think that it is weird that systemd is very different from what I've experienced in the past 20 years. For example, why the service's configuration files are stored at "/lib/systemd/system/*.service" and not directly under /etc? For God's sake... I thought that Debian had rules to organize its file system. For example, with CentOS / RedHat, when you install "httpd", it puts a symlink under /etc/httpd pointing to /var/log!! This means that RedHat doesn't care about any HUGE mess on its file system, and that is precisely why I'm a Debian user, because it is very well organized. But now, unfortunately, I'm thinking about this kind of FS organizations, again... Am I alone? BTW, sorry about the off-topic subject... But I would like to chat a bit with you guys... :-P Cheers! Thiago -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cajsm8j2bw5rp7adz0sgbjhobobfa-s6oy3xuh8kkxuznwjx...@mail.gmail.com
