On Tue, Mar 20, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Di, 20.03.18 15:09, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: > > > Another way I've thought about handling this is to basically invert things > > so that > > we have a "stub" unit that starts on bootup, and its ExecStop does > > the real work: > > This is the correct and recommended way to do this.
Thanks! > I think it's relatively pretty, as it means you have to "start" > something explicitly so that it can run code at shutdown. I'd claim > this is a semantical benefit, not a malus. Right. It does make sense also to me that basically we want to "hold a reference" to any resources required (in this case the /sysroot mount). But so `halt-local.service` is just busted? I guess no one really cares that much about it today, I may see though about submitting a PR to add a warning not to use it as a model. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
