On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 08:26:17AM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 05:54:32AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:09:45PM +0300, Oleksii Shevchuk wrote: >> > > sockets.socket - Test >> > > Loaded: loaded (/home/alxchk/.config/systemd/user/sockets.socket; >> > > static) >> > > Active: inactive (dead) >> > > Listen: Stream: /tmp/stream1 >> > > Stream: @stream4 >> > Pushed, but format changed to: >> > >> > listen1.socket - descr descr >> > Loaded: loaded (/run/systemd/system/listen1.socket; >> > static) >> > Active: failed (Result: resources) >> > ListenStream: /tmp/stream1 >> > ListenDatagram: /tmp/stream2 >> >> I must say I liked per-type grouping better. > It *looked* better, but the ordering of sockets is important: it determines > the order of fd's for the .service. For some applications it might not matter, > but for simple ones it might, so it's better to preserve this information.
If ordering is important, the output should reflect the ordering. The only way I can see that you could accomplish that unambiguously is by numbering them. Sorting them will just leave people puzzled as to what the order is. So, consider adding some form of numbering to the list of listen addresses. Perhaps something like: >> > 0: ListenStream: /tmp/stream1 >> > 1: ListenDatagram: /tmp/stream2 Cheers, Auke _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
