Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) said:
Nobody has said anything that upstart was being deprecated nobody!
Actually, I'll say that, sort of.
Fedora 14 should only ship with one automatic init system. Given the
current feature, that would be systemd. If it fails, that would be
upstart.
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
* if we continue to require sysVinit scripts in the guidlines, this is true.
* If we don't, then sysadmins that have to install packages without sysvinit
scripts will have to deal with writing their own init scripts.
My take on this is
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
Example: /lib/systemd/system/syslog.target has this line:
# See systemd.special(7) for details
I am not sure I want to duplicate all documentation in the man pages and
in the spec fails a second time. If you think a referal like that in
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:41, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then
# For new installations, hook unit file into the appropriate
places via symlinks
/usr/bin/systemd-install
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:41, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then
# For new installations, hook unit file into the appropriate
places via symlinks
/usr/bin/systemd-install
On Thu, 22.07.10 23:25, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
I think this scheme is really simply now, as the operations issued are
first class commands, and no switches necessary. Also, the verbs here
are 1:1 from the LSB specs, and hence should offer no surprises to
anybody.
On Fri, 23.07.10 07:15, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
Yes, unless you aks the init system to reload.
So we don't want to do systemd-install enable in most spec files.
Dunno.
There are three levels of installation thinkable:
1) on package installation a .service file is
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:25:23AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 17:51, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install
into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll
drop
Let's go off into a tangent:
Just booted my x86_64 rawhide box (up to date) into systemd. SELinux is
enforcing.
Boot works, but not graphical boot.
The output from the rc scripts is messed up ([OK] in gray, not green; not
at the end of the line but at the start of the next). Several fail.
X
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2010 11:31 PM, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Let's go off into a tangent:
Just booted my x86_64 rawhide box (up to date) into systemd. SELinux is
enforcing.
Boot works, but not graphical boot.
The output from the rc scripts is messed
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:42:03PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 23.07.10 07:15, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
Yes, unless you aks the init system to reload.
So we don't want to do systemd-install enable in most spec files.
Dunno.
There are three levels
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 21:30, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
[...]
Sorry, but what if the configuration got screwed
Horst H. von Brand vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
Let's go off into a tangent:
Just booted my x86_64 rawhide box (up to date) into systemd. SELinux is
enforcing.
Boot worked, but the machine got stuck on shudown. Had to power off. Thanks
$DEITY for journalling filesystems...
I saw comments on
tor 2010-07-22 klockan 18:48 +0200 skrev Miloslav Trmač:
I don't know whether this currently happens with Fedora, but it is not
at all irrelevant and systemd could indeed make the situation much
worse.
A typical problem in the past has been that starting dbus includes
looking at users and
tor 2010-07-22 klockan 15:12 -0400 skrev Simo Sorce:
The nss_sss and pam_sss clients know to immediately give up if the
sockets are not there because that means that sssd is not up yet.
If I were to use socket activation instead that service would bring
sssd up unnecessarily early, before
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
For simplicity's sake we thought it would be smart to ensure that the
unit names are actually identical to the unit configuration files they
are configured in on disk. i.e. you'll find the configuration for a unit
On 07/22/2010 07:16 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 23.07.10 00:55, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install
into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by
On 07/21/2010 10:42 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 21.07.10 22:13, Chuck Anderson (c...@wpi.edu) wrote:
Well, there is some merit in the already stated argument for having
good UI design. In this example, you could have used long-standing
precedent of using -v -vv -vvv (or -q -qq
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:33, Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/21/2010 10:42 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 21.07.10 22:13, Chuck Anderson (c...@wpi.edu) wrote:
Well, there is some merit in the already stated argument for having
good UI design. In this example, you
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:33:23 -0400
Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com wrote:
Granted, the user's conclusion in the first situation is bogus, but if
someones first interaction with the new system is confusion and
unnecessary readjustment of long held interface expectations, it's
going to cause
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:35 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
I think the bigger question is why are we doing this?
There's some motivation here:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 20:35 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
I think the bigger question is why are we
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:55, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
This should probably say systemd for F16
+1 FWIW. I'm not a huge sysv fanboi either, but I do care about the
experience of sysadmins and the upstream for other projects, and I would
like to see some soak time for this
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
So, please, when Jef finishes his work, or I find the time to, we will
provide chkconfig compat too (at least to a certain degree). However,
doing this is actually just the cherry on top of the topping of our
delicous cake. But
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:21:07AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
FWIW this is the reason why upstart pretty much ended being a renamed
sysvinit without offering any benefits because people are afraid of
change.
That's what we
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:36PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally
introduce improvements over the next few releases.
Once you start doing that people will cry because it is different from
what they are used too (does not matter if
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 07:31:22AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
/usr/bin/systemd-install disable --realize=yes %{unit name}.service
/dev/null 21 || :
fi
Umm, that's copying one of the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:36PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally
introduce improvements over the next few releases.
Once you start doing that people will
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:52 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
(And
that those who have to pay this cost are crying.)
Everyone has to pay this cost and everyone gets something in return.
That's not what you are
Once upon a time, drago01 drag...@gmail.com said:
No I am just saying that a change isn't bad because it is a change.
And others (like me) are just saying that a change isn't good because it
is new.
There's a middle ground that needs to be found, but repeating either of
change==bad or new==good
On Wed, 21.07.10 23:56, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 05:25:19AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Now, after discussing this over 2years with many folks and reading up on
launchd and SMF and the opinions on the net, we then distilled of the
requests a
On Thu, 22.07.10 03:55, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
I was pretty clear in everything you cut off about the whole You know
what people need, they need this and the whole developers making things
for sysadmins because they think sysadmins need it thing. 0pointer.de is
On Thu, 22.07.10 09:13, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
IMHO, systemd seems to cram a bunch of existing things (init, inetd,
chkconfig, service, pstree, etc.) together, and the assumption is that
this is new and good. I don't really agree. For example, if on-demand
activation for
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Fedora. Now, who's right? It's unlikely that we can figure that out for
sure, given that Fedora is a lot of things to a lot of people, so our
two opposite opinions even out in a zero sum game.
Oh, if we only had a committee
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:52:06PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally
introduce improvements over the next few releases.
Once you start doing that people will cry because it is different from
what they are used too (does not
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:11:31AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:52:06PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Everyone has to pay this cost and everyone gets something in return.
And the way you present this as an _overall win_ is by emphasizing the
returns and decreasing the
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
1. Parallelization: we can completely get rid of any serialization of
startup. We can start *every* signle daemon at the same time in one
big step, regardless whether one of them needs another. i.e. we can
start
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
3. Robustness: The sockets stay around all the time, and always
connectable. You can kill a daemon but you won't lose a single
connection while doing that! Particularly for stateless protocols
(such as DNS or
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
1. Parallelization: we can completely get rid of any serialization of
startup. We can start *every* signle daemon at the same time in one
big step, regardless whether
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:42:19AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
In addition to circular deps, have any studies been done on disk
contention when you just start everything all at once? If we're not
careful we could actually increase boot time in some scenarios. I guess
one way to check would be
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:29, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
they hence would have needed to be started one after the other, so
that every service using another services can be sure it can talk to
the one it needs. I mean, how awesome is that? We can completely
remove *any* kind of
On Thu, 22.07.10 10:42, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
how do you deal with circular dependencies in this case?
I mean what will happen ? Will all services just deadlock?
Malfunction ? Anything that guarantees correct initialization and
behavior ?
In addition to circular
Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 18:35 +0200:
If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in turn
uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless
whether systemd is used or not.
Cyclic dependencies cause deadlocks. Introducing systemd has
On Thu, 22.07.10 18:48, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
Lennart Poettering píše v Čt 22. 07. 2010 v 18:35 +0200:
If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in turn
uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless
whether systemd is used or not.
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:31, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
3. Robustness: The sockets stay around all the time, and always
connectable. You can kill a daemon but you won't lose a single
connection
On 07/13/2010 07:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Heya,
as many of you probably know systemd got accepted as feature for F-14 by
FESCO a few weeks back.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd
I just want to say that I am excited to explore this new system, but very
concerned about
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Looking at what Windows and MacOS do in this area is probably
healthy. Both systems rearrange sectors on disk and parallelize as much
as possible. I think that's bascially a good recipe we should follow
too.
On Thu, 22.07.10 11:00, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Fedora. Now, who's right? It's unlikely that we can figure that out for
sure, given that Fedora is a lot of things to a lot of people, so our
two opposite
On 07/22/2010 06:37 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Personally, speaking as a person_and_ a sysadmin, it would be
worthwhile to have a big freakin button somewhere that allowed me to
disable all native systemd config files and let me run sysinit style
files when the situation demands... ie crap
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Wed, 21.07.10 20:13, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
It appears that you're looking at this from the point of view of chkconfig
as a tool which causes certain manipuations of the system to happen
(symlinks changed). That's the
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand
vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
Great to know about that. And yes, it is extremely relevant for a sysadmin
to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and stuff.
Hmm... can these tools learn to prefer a certain format
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
however is very confusing when you'd write disable --start to disable
something and then have it stop...) We then considered --now, because
it is not a verb.
What is wrong with that? enable --now and disable --now read right
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 15:39, Jeff Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand
vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
Great to know about that. And yes, it is extremely relevant for a sysadmin
to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs
On 07/23/2010 03:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
What do other commands use for do it now (instead of later)? Perhaps
the ubiquitous -f/--force will do?
I think --now is fine. There's even precedent: the famous 'shutdown -h
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an
abstract computer object.
Dave, I am not a
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen this done with a couple of GNU tools in the past. The
problems that usually stopped this was that too many strange consoles
seem to be a pipe at somepoint and so it spits out the wrong format at
the wrong
On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 03:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/23/2010 03:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:37 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
What do other commands use for do it now (instead of later)? Perhaps
the ubiquitous -f/--force will do?
I think --now
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:22 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
Leadership means making careful, well-conceived decisions. Otherwise, it's
not leading, it's charging around blindly shouting follow me!.
I'll leave the rest of the thread to Matthew and Mike McGrath, since
they seem to share my position
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 01:39:06PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand
vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
Great to know about that. And yes, it is extremely relevant for a sysadmin
to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs and
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:21:59PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2010 06:37 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Personally, speaking as a person_and_ a sysadmin, it would be
worthwhile to have a big freakin button somewhere that allowed me to
disable all native systemd config files
On Fri, 23.07.10 00:55, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/23/2010 12:10 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install
into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll
drop some of the options
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think --now is fine. There's even precedent: the famous 'shutdown -h
now'.
Bonus points if it also allows midnight, noon, and teatime a la `at`.
:)
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior Systems Architect --
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:44:31PM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
But for basics such as chkconfig service on|off|--list, there should
be compatibility.
Yes. I basically use:
chkconfig foo on
chkconfig foo off
env LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 chkconfig --list | fgrep :on |awk '{print $1}
I
On Thu, 22.07.10 17:51, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Kay and I have discussed this now. We agreed to fold systemd-install
into systemctl entirely, and replace --realize by --now. Also, we'll
drop some of the options --realize had, and always imply that the init
system
On Fri, 23.07.10 01:17, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 07/23/2010 01:14 AM, Alexander Boström wrote:
But the thing to remember: If systemd-install is too complicated to use,
people will keep using chkconfig and service instead and ignore the
warning. That's why it's
On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
But also HTTP is a good candidate. When apache shuts down it closes
the listening socket but will finish processing the requests it
already began to process. Would apache use socket actviation like
this it would hence be
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:30:42AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 21.07.10 20:08, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
- If you want to enable and possibly start a service from the %post of
an RPM then use the systemd-install enable command, which will
create a few
On Thu, 22.07.10 13:39, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Horst H. von Brand
vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
Great to know about that. And yes, it is extremely relevant for a sysadmin
to know how to tickle the system so it spits out awk(1)-able logs
On Thu, 22.07.10 16:36, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
[...]
Well, I think good UI means that you distuingish computer parsable and
human readable tools. status is human readable. show/check are
computer-parsable.
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:41, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then
# For new installations, hook unit file into the appropriate places
via symlinks
/usr/bin/systemd-install enable --realize=reload %{unit
name}.service /dev/null 21 || :
else
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
My impression from the documentation is that systemd-install enable will
cause the service to be enabled on the next reboot. Is that not
correct?
Yes, unless you aks the init system to reload.
Wait, am I correct in
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Same with systemd. If you use systemctl status foo.service the output
is human readable. If it is systemctl show foo.service it is computer
parsable. Just a slightly different command of the systemctl tool.
Again: this is
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 18:06, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Same with systemd. If you use systemctl status foo.service the output
is human readable. If it is systemctl show foo.service it is computer
parsable. Just a
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
My impression from the documentation is that systemd-install enable will
cause the service to be enabled on the next reboot. Is that not
correct?
On Thu, 22.07.10 20:40, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
but its seems quite an abstract term to associate reality with an
abstract computer
On Thu, 22.07.10 18:16, Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 18:06, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Same with systemd. If you use systemctl status foo.service the output
is human
On Thu, 22.07.10 19:08, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
Now that everybody has been (re)informed we can go back on focusing
working out these issues together without any negativity on any ones behalf.
This may not be true. No packaging guidelines have been put forth
for
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Wed, 14.07.10 21:38, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
[...]
I think some of this is just the tools being inconsistent in terminology.
Take systemctl:
- It has a LOAD column (which is always 'loaded', in observation)
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 19:06 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Same with systemd. If you use systemctl status foo.service the output
is human readable. If it is systemctl show foo.service it is computer
parsable. Just a slightly
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
[...]
Bad example, it may make sense if you have a single host, but if you
have multiple HTTP servers, you want the one that died to stop answering
until it is back up and running
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 16:36, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
[...]
Well, I think good UI means that you distuingish computer parsable and
human readable tools. status is
Jeff Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/7/22 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
I think it's time to re-inform everyone since they seemed to be so
focused on systemd and have completely forgot about upstart.
Nobody has said anything that upstart was being deprecated nobody!
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
This may not be true. No packaging guidelines have been put forth
for systemd yet so I cannot know:
* if we continue to require sysVinit scripts in the guidlines, this is true.
* If we don't, then sysadmins that have to install packages
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de said:
Trust me, the output of the two commands is sufficiently different to
not confuse anybody.
It isn't the output that is confusing, it is the names. show and
status are just too close, and people are not going to remember which
is
On Thu, 22.07.10 15:12, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
If a service A uses functionality provided by a service B which in
turn uses functionality provided by A then things willbreak regardless
whether systemd is used or not.
This is not true.
SSSD is an example of that.
The
On Thu, 22.07.10 21:30, Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 15:19, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
[...]
Bad example, it may make sense if you have a single host, but if you
have multiple HTTP
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:31:49AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Note that systemctl enable foo.service will (with my suggested changes
in place) result in foo.service to be started. For Fedora we generally
Is that will not result? Otherwise I'm having trouble parsing this
paragraph.
On Thu, 22.07.10 22:21, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:31:49AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Note that systemctl enable foo.service will (with my suggested changes
in place) result in foo.service to be started. For Fedora we generally
Is that
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:12:53 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Well, in your sssd example above the cyclic dependency exists with or
without systemd. You try to work around this fact in saying well,
I simply say that nobody could ever need my services before a certain
point
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:12:53 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Also, if you look at sssd and a simple hypothetical syslog daemon
which looks up the user id of everybody connecting to it. If sssd is
used this will deadlock: sssd logs to syslog, and syslog uses NSS to
resovle
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 04:12:53 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
To get rid of dep cycles we have to declare which daemon may use which
other daemon. For example, for the case of mysql and syslog, we can
say that mysql is client and syslog is server and then be done with
it.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:43:45 +0200
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 20:40, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de)
wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 08:05, Simo Sorce (sso...@redhat.com) wrote:
to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 02:43:45AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 22.07.10 20:40, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
systemctl stop postfix.service
systemctl disable postfix.service
systemctl enable foobar.service
systemctl try-restart foobar.service
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 18:43, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
systemctl enable foobar.service
systemctl reload foobar.service ### reload if running
or just:
systemctl enable foobar.service
or, for debian folks which want to start services after package
TK == Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com writes:
TK * What replaces chkconfig
TK * What replaces /etc/init.d/SERVICENAME start | stop ?
If the answers aren't chkconfig and service foo start then I fear
significant backlash from poor people who actually have to run F-14
systems. We pretty much
On 07/21/2010 03:24 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I have a few requests for things to add to that page :-)
* What replaces chkconfig
systemd-install
Now first the gotcha then I'll provide chkconfig replacement example.
Admins will need to know that they have to use chkconfig for services
On Tue, 20.07.10 20:24, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 15:42 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Perhaps someone could put together a wiki page for lazy sysadmins with
a QA? ie, I used to
Once upon a time, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com said:
And as the general rule goes native configuration breaks legacy
configuration so if a native systemd $service file does exist than
changing service via chkconfig no longer will work.
As an admin, this is crap. Where does
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com said:
And as the general rule goes native configuration breaks legacy
configuration so if a native systemd $service file does exist than
changing service via
Once upon a time, drago01 drag...@gmail.com said:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com said:
And as the general rule goes native configuration breaks legacy
configuration so if a native systemd
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
