On Tue, 12.01.16 19:37, Reindl Harald (h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >That said, of course, this is not obvious at first, hence since quite > >some time "systemctl stop" will actually explain this to you: if you > >stop a daemon, but leave its socket running, then you'll get a > >friendly message telling you about this, and suggesting you the right > >command line to terminate the socket too. > > as soon as you are able to print out such a "friendly message" you are also > able to imply it automatically Well, sure, but that's something we don't want to do, as people should be able to stop units and their triggering units separately and individually. I'd be willing to take a patch that adds a new job mode though, that recursively includes stop/start jobs for all triggering units. i.e. "systemctl --job-mode=triggering foo.service" or so. That would certainly be a useful enhancement, but should not be the default. > >I am pretty sure this makes a lot of sense the way it is, and is > >sufficiently well self-explanatory. > > no, it violates the prnciple of least surprise and that won't change Well, let's agree to disagree on this one. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
