On Wed, 24.11.10 13:59, MichaÅ Piotrowski (mkkp4x4@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > 2010/11/24 Tomasz Torcz <tomek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:41:49PM +0100, MichaÅ Piotrowski wrote: > >> 2010/11/24 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > On Sun, 21.11.10 00:46, MichaÅ Piotrowski (mkkp4x4@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> I would like to help with scripts conversion. IMO the conversion > >> >> action should be coordinated. > >> >> > >> >> Comments, thoughts? > >> > > >> > I would certainly welcome any work in this direction! > >> > >> Could you look at the > >> crond.service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656864 > >> and > >> atd.service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656869 > >> and see if I did not do any fundamental error? > >> > >> Seems to me that these are simple enough at the beginning :) > >> > >> For both I used Type=forking - it works fine, but it seems to me that > >> Type=simple might be a better choice. > > > > For type=simple you would like "-n" switch in crond invocation. > > Ah, ok, I'll keep forking. It's generally nicer to use "simple" wherever possible, unless you have a really good reason to assume that your service might be needed to be up by something else, and that something else might want synchronize to it. Since at/cron don't really offer any live protocols to other processes I think Type=simple is a good idea here. BTW, regarding at and cron: what I was thinking of but never check ehwther it is feasible is to make cron/at autostart a soon as some job is scheduled. I.e. use .path trigger to check whether /etc/crontab and user jobs exist, and start cron only then. Similarly for at. That way we could support cron and at just fine, and wouldn't even have to run it by default. I haven't looked into this in detail however, to see if the file triggers systemd offers in .path units are already sufficient to make this work. (And /etc/cron.daily and stuff would then be managed by systemd natively, in a .timer unit) > > I suggest trimming Description, it is printed during bootup and should be short. > > I didn't noticed it - I guess "quiet" kernel param is also interpreted > by SystemD. Yes, systemd honours "quiet": Btw, it's written "systemd", not "SystemD". I even added a section about the spelling now to the systemd homepage ;-) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
