[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: systemd log messages during boot (Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd)

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:06:51AM CEST, Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> said:
> Am 22.07.2014 19:22, schrieb Erwan David:
> > Le 22/07/2014 18:59, Michael Biebl a écrit :
> >> Am 22.07.2014 18:24, schrieb The Wanderer:
> >>
> >>> As far as I can see, there is no way to get init-system log messages
> >>> without also getting kernel log messages
> >> Of course there is.
> >>
> >> Might help if you actually tried it before commenting on it?
> >>
> >> The systemd.* specific flags override the global quiet flag. The
> >>
> >> So you can very well keep the quiet kernel command line argument and use
> >>
> >> systemd.show_status=true|false
> >> systemd.sysv_console=true|false
> >> systemd.log_level=...
> >> systemd.log_target=...
> >>
> >> etc. to control in a very fine grained manner, how the data is logged.
> >>
> > 
> > It would be interesting if the default was not changed, ie. same
> > behaviour when using the default configuration.
> The default wasn't changed, really.
> It's simply that SysV init scripts are so horribly inconsistent and
> interpret the "quiet" parameter differently. So we don't have a
> consistent behaviour wrt to logging and output.

The defauklt was changed in that nomessage at all, no sign of any
progression is NOT the former behaviour.
> The example skeleton SysV init script /etc/init.d/skeleton, which is
> supposed to be a base for newly written init scripts uses
> /lib/init/init-d-script. If you take a look at that script, you'll see
> that prefixes its log message with [ "$VERBOSE" != no ] && log_*_msg
> And surprise, VERBOSE is set to "no" by /lib/init/vars.sh if the kernel
> command line contains "quiet".
> Thankfully, this is all fixed now with systemd, where you have a
> consistent and central place to configure that.

NO it ids NOT fixed,k because what imports is NOT the theory but the
actual behaviour. The actual behaviour is changed, and the new one is
more than disturbing.

Reply to: