Re: [EXT] Re: Re: "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing" issue

["Windl, Ulrich" <u.windl@xxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 4:12 PM
> To: Windl, Ulrich <u.windl@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>; systemd-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EXT] Re: Re:  "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing"
> issue
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:25 AM Windl, Ulrich <u.windl@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 1:19 PM
> > > To: Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Windl, Ulrich <u.windl@xxxxxx>; systemd-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [EXT] Re:  "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing"
> issue
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:12 PM Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Furthermore it seems to be necessary to run the service unit itself,
> too
> > > (assuming it must be enabled also, right?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No. The purpose of the timer is to start the service, so starting the
> service
> > > manually (or "enabling" it, to be started on boot) would be redundant.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OnUnitInactiveSec begins counting when service gets stopped. How is
> > > this timer supposed to start a service that was never active (and
> > > hence never stopped) before?
> > [Windl, Ulrich]
> >
> > OK, so what would you suggest instead?
> 
> Did you even try to read my reply to *your* original post?
[Windl, Ulrich] 

You wrote "... starting the service manually (or "enabling" it, to be started on boot) would be redundant.", but you also wrote " OnUnitInactiveSec begins counting when service gets stopped. How is this timer supposed to start a service that was never active (and hence never stopped) before?" Isn't that a contradiction? So my question " Can you explain where OnUnitInactiveSec would make sense?" IS justified IMHO. And I think there is no reason to be unfriendly unless you want users "go away".

Ulrich

> 
> > Alternatively, can you explain where OnUnitInactiveSec would make
> sense?
> >