Re: systemd fails to poweroff - "A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER"
On 8/13/14, Paul E Condon <pecondon@mesanetworks.net> wrote:
> I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed
> use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a
That would definitely be clearer.
I was interpreting it as some special systemd shutdown-ey thing which
runs around trying to stop things, and that there might be various of
these, and one of them has a problem.
I.e. "stop job" being a noun.
But your suggestion sounds more intuitive. All just guesses to me.
> bug in the script that fails to evaluate the variable USER and
> therefore fails to print the name of the user (aka. owner) of the
> stopped job in Session 2.
The systemd message actually has my username in that message, I
changed it to "$USER". Sorry for any confusion there.
> Did OP attempted to connect to Session 2 and terminate the job there?
I'm not sure on what a systemd "session" is. I know Ctrl-Alt-2 to go
to console 2, but that was just blank.
> Does the message really keep the system from executing poweroff? Or,
> does it just introduce a delay long enough for the user who is
> requesting the poweroff to reconsider and abort his request?
Could be. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'll wait a good 2 minutes before
hard-reset.
> What did the OP actually do that he hoped would cause a poweroff?
> i.e. what did he type? or button did he click?
Now clarified elsewhere. Again, apologies for not providing the full
details earlier.
> In a better formulated message, there should be a comma ',' between
> 'user' and '$USER'. Thus if the USER of Session 2 is Joe, the message
> should read (adding a full stop at the end):
>
> "A stopped job is running for Session 2 of user, Joe."
>
> But even this is poorly worded. A job that is both running, and
> stopped is a goofy idea, as well as somewhat verbose. Maybe it should
> be:
>
> "A stopped job exists for Session 2 of user, Joe."
I agree. Perhaps "stop job" really is a noun, and the message is nice
and concise? In that case, we need to find out what a "stop job" is.
> I'm assuming that it is OK to assume that the user who did whatever made
> his computer spit out this message understands what a stopped job is, but
If it is indeed a stopped job, I do not know what job it might be. I
generally don't background stuff (I do sometimes, but usually only
temporarily, before "fg"ing the job.
I have not been able yet to isolate the problem.
> I'm unaware of any Debian manual of style for error messages as newspapers
> have manuals of style for news item they print. Is there one? If so, it
> should give advice on the use of 'for' and 'of' in this context.
>
> OTOH, maybe I misunderstand the situation.
>
> HTH
Thank you. Let's see what we find...
Zenaan
Reply to: