On Fri, 03.09.10 15:30, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote: > Is there any real, useful, reason to define both of these? In RH/Fedora, we > don't support a distinction, and haven't since switching away from sysvinit. > As they're set up now in systemd, they're identical except for some string > output, and do not have any different handling in the daemon itself aside > from the different arguments. It seems far simpler to define one and worry > about adding more later rather than creating a reserved word/signal/target > that will live forever that may not be necessary.
In systemd, "emergency" is little more than an equivalent to init=/bin/sh on the kernel command like. i.e. you get a shell, but almost nothing else (except for systemd in the background which you can then ask to do more). No services are started, no mount points mounted, no sockets established, nothing. Just a raw, delicious shell and systemd's promise to be around if you need more. In contrast to that "rescue" is equivalent to the old runlevel 1 (or S), i.e. sysinit is run, everything is mounted, but no normal services are started yet. I think emergency mode is kinda nice for debugging purposes, since it allows you to boot bit-by-bit, simply by starting in the emergency mode and then starting the various services and other units that are part of the early boot step-by-step. This will become particularly useful when Fedora splits up sysinit into various smaller scripts which could then be started seperately and independently. Consider it a part of our boot-up debugging tools. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
