On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 07:57 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On 11 Aug 2015 06:49, "Tanu Kaskinen" <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 09:05 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > > On 6 August 2015 at 05:14, Peter Meerwald <pmeerw at pmeerw.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This ensures systemd knows when pulseaudio finishes loading, > > > > > thus > > > > > never > > > > > marking pulseaudio as active if startup fails. > > > > > > > > the notify thing doesn't work together with --daemonize; > > > > > > This can be solved by either setting NotifyAccess=all in the unit > > > or > > > passing the main pid back to systemd at fork time (I haven't > > > actually > > > tried this but should work). The latter should be the best option > > > of > > > these 2, > > > but maybe we should just document the --no-daemonize requirement? > > > I > > > doubt there is actually a need to run pulseaudio daemonized uner > > > systemd. > > > > Does this problem only exist when PulseAudio is managed by systemd? > > That is, the sd_notify() calls are harmless if PulseAudio was > > started > > via some other means? If so, then I agree with Felipe - I think > > it's > > sufficient to document that --daemonize shouldn't be used in > > systemd > > unit files. > > Yes, sd_notify does nothing when not invoked via systemd. This works > via a > socket passed via an environment variable. If that variable is not > set, > then sd_notify just returns. > > Where should that be documented? Is a comment in the unit enough, > or > should this be in the man page somewhere? I was thinking the pulseaudio man page, the section that documents the --daemonize switch, but it sounds like a good idea to put a comment to the unit file too. So I'm in favour of putting a warning to both places. -- Tanu
