Antw: Re: Unexpected behaviour not noticed by systemctl command

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

>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 07.10.2019 um 12:48 in
Nachricht <8c0ef6cf-7b51-c257-d974-b4b39b489c25@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*

The question was different. With "The start or stop operation is only carried out when the respective enable or disable operation has been successful." one could even argue that a "stop --now" also disables the service. If an option does not apply, there should be a warning that it is ignored, or maybe even better: An error should be raised.

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




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