On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 15:56 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 15:46 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote: > > Simo Sorce wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 15:35 -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote: > > >> My problem with systemd is that it seems to make things more opaque. > > >> It > > >> is hard to do even simple things like an strace on process startup > > >> because the shell is completely detached from execution. Which means > > >> that your logging needs to be top-notch so when things go wrong we > > >> can > > >> look somewhere and say "aha, it's X" > > >> > > > > > > Actually with systemd logging has become easier. > > > All you need to do is spit stuff to stdout (of course you must avoid > > > closing stdout if the daemon does so as they used to do to cope with > > > sysv init madness :) > > > > Yes, it is a mixed bag. Doesn't replace the sweetness of strace > > /etc/init.d/service start to find startup permission issues. If your > > daemon doesn't log that it is failing because it can't open some file > > then you're in deep. > > OTOH strace /etc/init.d/service start will almost certainly run > unconfined, so if the access issue is due to selinux policy you'll be > left with a fist of flies anyway. > > That said I think you can change the systemd unit file to run a shell > script with strace /usr/bin/myexec in it, have not tried that one yet > though.
I'd love an option to start a socket activated daemon in valgrind. That would be very useful... Nathaniel _______________________________________________ Freeipa-devel mailing list Freeipaemail@example.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel