>>> Lennart Poettering <lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 03.07.2019 um 13:30 in Nachricht <20190703113048.GC12226@gardel-login>: > On Mi, 03.07.19 08:37, Ulrich Windl (Ulrich.Windl@xxxxxx‑regensburg.de) wrote: > >> >> I agree here. While we do have `support‑url` which distros can >> >> override, Apparently not all of them do. >> >> We could probably change our build system, that `support‑url` needs to >> >> be set explicitly and if unset, no Support URL is printed in the >> >> journal output. >> > >> > This, or since the URL leads to [0], it would be also useful to extend >> > the "About systemd‑devel" section to provide some kind of warning that >> > this ML is mainly/only for upstream systemd, not for systemd shipped by >> > distributions. >> > >> > [0] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd‑devel >> >> The really annoying thing with systemd is that if SOMETHING fails during > boot, >> the complete boot is aborted and you are put into an emergency >> shell. > > This is not really the case. Only stuff that has a Requires= > dependency from basic.targe/sysinit.target/local‑fs.target will cause > the boot to fail. Most services except the most essential are not > marked with Requires=, but use Wants=. For me ANY filesystem in /etc/fstab that failed to mount caused a significant delay with no message indicating what's going on and finally a emergency shell. More strangly there was some addity I still cannot explain with multiopathd, a local HPSA (CCISS) RAID controller and pvscan claiming to be unable to find a local disk. In the past I even had the more interesting situation that a successful manual mount of /boot was immediately unmounted by systemd. As it truned out, when stopping multipathd /boot was mounted with some delay by systemd, and when starting multipathd again, /boot was umounted by systemd again. If you (=systemd) have /boot unmounted while doing a kernel update, you'll have great "fun" at next boot (system won't bnoot, or will boot the old kernel). > > systemd gives you precise control what is required and what just shall > be started through this. If your distro or your admin use that > incorrectly, pleas work with them to fix that. In my view of things it's not that systemd GIVES me precise control, but systemd TAKES AWAY control from me. > >> Combined >> with the fact that the user sees nothing while systemd waits for something >> (like 3 minutes) the user does not know (because he does not see >> anything on > > That's not true. You see the "eye of ceylon" animation on the console > with info what is being waited for. Maybe you use a bootsplash that > turns that off? Talk to you distro. And the eye of ceylong animation > has been in place since a long long time. Sometimes I see messages, sometimes I do not. Most of the time when things do NOT work, I also see no massages (which is very bad). It may be my distribution, but assuming the people who configured it are quite smart, it seems systemd's smartness even beats theirs. > >> the console) gives the impression that the system "hangs". This is true at >> least for SLES 12. > > Hm, isn't SLES 12 like 5 years old by now? Maybe upgrade to something > less archaic? SLES12 has support for another 3 years (plus maybe optional extended support even). If you want a system that reliably works, you are not after the latest software, BTW. > >> To make systemd better, you really have to listen to the users' problems and >> actually MAKE IT BETTER. > > Maybe it is already a lot better, but we can't change your five year > old distro as upstream project? OK, put more simple: Normaly "systemctl start something" does not print anything when it succeeded. How could I see what's going on during boot (star tcommands' output is being redirected to syslog by systemd)? > > Lennart > > ‑‑ > Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel