Antw: Re: Q: Reducing the output of systemctl status

["Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Lennart Poettering <lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 15.05.2019 um 11:04 in
Nachricht <20190515090447.GA22719@gardel-login>:

[...]
>> I just noticed: If you use a "argv[0] override" for your command, it's not
>> just that the command is started with that name, it's also displayed as
>> ExecStart here (not path shown).  I used it to shorten error messages using
>> argv[0].
> 
> I cannot parse this?

"@/var/run/iotwatch-LOC1/iotwatch-LOC1 iotwatch-LOC1 ..." is displayed as "iotwatch-LOC1 ...":
Process: 13950 ExecStart=iotwatch-LOC1 ...

> 
>> So I'd like a status output that simply displays:
>> Active: active (running) since Wed 2019-05-15 08:33:14 CEST; 2min 17s ago
> 
> I mean, I'd like a pony, too.

Real men want a death star, not a pony ;-)

> 
> It appears you want to use "systemctl is-active", not "systemctl status".

Right, but when you have --quiet already, why to apply it consistently?
Also it seems that "systemctl is-active" accepts any name (e.g. mis-spelled service names) without complaint, saying it's "inactive". Is that a bug?

Regards,
Ulrich




_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel