On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 09:09 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Should "systemctl stop foo.service" stop all parent and child service processes? > > Example: GlusterFS starts a service daemon (glusterd) and a brick daemon > (glusterfsd). When a user issues "systemctl stop glusterd" the service daemon is > stopped but the brick daemon is left running. > > I have recently learned that it is expected behavior[1], but this seems to be a > defeat of the purpose of the stop command. What is @devel thoughts? > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022542#c1 The justification here sounds wrong, if every package decides to re-interpret the meaning of 'stop' as they please we quickly end up with inconsistent behavior all over and diminish the usefulness of the command, as people will not be able to just trust it and will have to go around and test if it did what they asked for. If glusterfs feels people need to run the bricks and the main daemons separately then they should probably split service files and have a dependency to bring one up when the other comes up, yet still be allowed to take the daemon down w/o taking down the bricks. Separate service files will make it clear you can operate on them separately. > [2] I did not contact JoeJulian as I feel this is a Fedora issue and not a > GlusterFS issue. Fedora tries to push systemd service files upstream, I think you should involve glusterfs people and explain what they are doing wrong. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
