On Wed, 25.06.14 14:43, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:32:12AM -0700, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > man/systemctl.xml | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > > src/systemctl/systemctl.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+) > > > > + <term><command>is-system-running</command></term> > > + > > + <listitem> > > + <para>Checks whether the system is running. This returns > > + success when the system is fully up and running, meaning > > + not in startup, shutdown or maintainance mode. Failure is > > + returned otherwise. In addition, the current state is > > + printed in a short string to standard output. Use > > + <option>--quiet</option> to suppress output of this state > > + string.</para> > > + </listitem> > > + </varlistentry> > "is-system-running" is very generic, without reading the documentation > I would guess this to include the bootup phase. Maybe it should be renamed > to something like "is-bootup-finished" or something. I tried to keep this close to the low-level state enum, that we also show in "systemctl list-machines" or "systemctl status" without args. The idea is that the bahaviour of this new systemctl verb mirrors nicely the already existing "is-enabled" and "is-active" which also map directly to their respective low-level state enums... Makes sense? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
