Re: Unexpected behaviour not noticed by systemctl command

[Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am 07.10.19 um 12:43 schrieb Andy Pieters:
> Just lately ran into a fumble. I was trying to stop and disable a
> service and I typed in:
> 
> systemctl stop --now example.service

but nowehere "disable" is statet with that command

> The service duly stopped but wasn't disabled because the --now switch
> is only applicable on the disable/enable/mask commands

yes, it "executes the state" instead just disable it for the next boot
but "stop now" don't imply a different behavior as "stop" unless there
would be some timing to exectue "stop" by default which isn't

> However, shouldn't it be good practice to produce a warning or an
> error when a switch is used that has no effect?

it is used, it is stopped *now*
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel