On Tue, 07.09.10 13:18, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote: > > Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) said: > > > It reads confusingly, in that if sysinit is 'Before' emergency, the > > > implication would be that if you enable emergency mode, sysinit would be > > > started before it. It isn't, as the dependency isn't there. > > > > sysinit.target has a Conflicts with emergency.target. > > Not currently in the packages here; sysinit only conflicts with > shutdown.
Oh. Uh. By bit means of "isolate" it gains that.... > > > Two other emergency points: > > > - it doesn't have the same sort of boot alias as 'single'. If you're > > > going for compat with old sysvinit, it should have an 'emergency' alias > > > (that leaves out systemd.unit=....) > > > > Hmm, not sure I follow? This emergency mode didn't really exist in > > sysv. > > If sysvinit is passed 'emergency' on the command line, it starts a shell. > (This is all done in init itself, not inittab or other configuration.) Oh, I wasn't aware of that. I have now added this to systemd git. Thanks for the pointer. > > > - respawn is pretty pointless here (as it is for rescue). It should > > > just have ExecStartPost=/bin/systemctl default > > > > Hmm, you have a point there. I need to think about this. > > That line works fine for rescue mode in testing... it should work OK for > emergency mode (as long as it's started during boot and not later - perhaps > emergency should have RefuseManualStart=yes?) Hmm, my long term plan is to make the boot scripts fully idempotent so that we can execute them twice in a row and they work fine. I think they mostly work fine that way already with the exception of fsck which fails when executed a second time because the file systems might be mounted or mounted writable. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
