'Twas brillig, and Lennart Poettering at 11/01/12 13:42 did gyre and gimble: > i.e. there are a number of processes from the initrd which stick > around during normal operation which are still to be killed in the > killing spree, most prominently plymouth.
Fair point, but in the plymouth case specifically, don't you want to enable plymouth as soon as X quits and then keep it running hiding away all that geeky text with a shiney icon/gradient right up until the last possible moment? Does systemd *really* want to kill plymouth on shutdown before it hands control back to initrd? I'd have thought that we would actually want to keep it active - initrd starts it, initrd stops it. I'm sure there are non-plymouth examples too, so I'm sure your point is still valid, but figured I'd ask anyway :) Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
