Re: [systemd-devel] When System is Degraded

2016-06-06 Thread Martin Pitt
Hey Aaron, aaron_wri...@selinc.com [2016-06-06 10:27 -0700]: > I'm using systemd in an embedded device that some some LEDs. I'd like to > make an LED red when the system starts up degraded, and green when > everything is working normally. > I'm having a hard time figuring out where to fit this i

Re: [systemd-devel] CentOS 7 system using abstract namespace socket for notifications

2016-06-06 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Sun, 05.06.16 04:49, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn (denni...@conversis.de) wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to make my javascript application compatible with the systemd > service notification mechanism but currently have the problem that while > everything works fine on my Fedora 22 system this is not the ca

[systemd-devel] When System is Degraded

2016-06-06 Thread Aaron_Wright
I'm using systemd in an embedded device that some some LEDs. I'd like to make an LED red when the system starts up degraded, and green when everything is working normally. I'm having a hard time figuring out where to fit this in. I tried using a service that runs "systemctl is-system-running" aft

Re: [systemd-devel] /usr/lib/systemd/*.wants vs. Wants in unit definition

2016-06-06 Thread Simon McVittie
On 06/06/16 15:17, Martin Pitt wrote: > Of course it could also just do the usual WantedBy= in the unit and > call systemctl enable on installation (that's what the Debian package > does) Most Debian packages with systemd services do this, but there are exceptions. > but there are cases where you

Re: [systemd-devel] /usr/lib/systemd/*.wants vs. Wants in unit definition

2016-06-06 Thread Martin Pitt
Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 14:56 +0300]: > Sorry I had to be more clear. What is advantage of shipping them in > systemd? Systemd has well defined early boot services that are always > needed. Why they are shipped as links instead of actually expressing > those mandatory dependencies in unit defi

Re: [systemd-devel] /usr/lib/systemd/*.wants vs. Wants in unit definition

2016-06-06 Thread Andrei Borzenkov
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Martin Pitt wrote: > Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 13:55 +0300]: >> What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in >> /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition? >> They complicate troubleshooting (you no more have complete d

Re: [systemd-devel] /usr/lib/systemd/*.wants vs. Wants in unit definition

2016-06-06 Thread Jan Alexander Steffens
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:27 PM Martin Pitt wrote: > Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 13:55 +0300]: > > What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in > > /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition? > > They complicate troubleshooting (you no more have complet

Re: [systemd-devel] /usr/lib/systemd/*.wants vs. Wants in unit definition

2016-06-06 Thread Martin Pitt
Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 13:55 +0300]: > What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in > /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition? > They complicate troubleshooting (you no more have complete definition > by looking just at unit source), they complic

[systemd-devel] /usr/lib/systemd/*.wants vs. Wants in unit definition

2016-06-06 Thread Andrei Borzenkov
What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition? They complicate troubleshooting (you no more have complete definition by looking just at unit source), they complicate building (extra steps to install them); what ar