On 06/17/2011 10:16 PM, Aaron Sowry wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to discuss the behaviour of systemctl. See RH bug 713567 for > context. To summarise: > > - 'systemctl --all' pages by default when the output is to tty. This consumes > 50-60+ lines of potentially bug-prone code, and irks the crap out of me as a > system administrator. systemctl's jurisdiction ends at stdout. > > - The same command outputs column headers on tty, and no headers otherwise. > This is inconsistent. If I am outputting to a file, or perhaps a printer, and > want headers on my non-tty output, I have to add them myself since there is > no flag to force them on non-tty channels. If I don't want them and they are > present, I tail. > > - Currently, if I run 'systemctl --all' and have no pager (at least no pager > that systemctl knows of) available, I get an error message and no output. > This is horribly bad form, and forces me to use --no-pager or pipe to cat in > order to get output. This issue is acknowledged in RH bug 713707. > > - Another bright idea (RH bug 713567) is that --full should be applied to > non-tty output automatically, and not to tty output. > > All of these peculiarities stem from poor UNIX programming practise. Do not > try to make decisions for me as a user (especially not based on output > channels), about how I want my output formatted. No other Linux/UNIX tools > make this assumption (with perhaps the exception of git-log et. al.), and if > you are wanting administrators to feel comfortable with your new > soon-to-be-ubiquitous tools, then I suggest you try to be consistent with > existing convention. I don't want to have to check man pages to see if piping > output gives me different results than tty, and I would rather use existing, > well-proven tools to format my output than a bunch of flags I have to > re-learn just to be able to deal with systemctl. The type of people using > systemctl are not the type of people that are going to need hand-holding. > > Thanks. >
I'll add one (small) inconsistency: # systemctl is-active <service> has following output: > active and sets exit code. If you don't wont any output, you need to use "--quiet" # systemctl is-enabled <service> just sets exit code. I'd prefer if the behaviour of "is-active" and "is-enabled" is the same: simple output and "--quiet" option. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
