Re: No feedback from systemd / "systemctl stop X"... Nothing on stdout, nothing that `echo $?` can see...

[Martinx - ジェームズ <thiagocmartinsc@gmail.com>]

On 12 March 2015 at 01:13, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, The Wanderer wrote:
> > Running those commands doesn't give you output from 'systemctl stop
> > foo' or the like, however.
>
> > I thought the OP was asking how to determine, from the exit code
> > and/or the console output of 'systemctl stop foo' (or a similar
> > command, one that actually _alters_ the status of a service), whether
> > the command actually succeeded.
>
> If you want to know that, then do something like:
>
> systemctl start foo && systemctl is-active foo;
>
> or
>
> systemctl stop foo && ! systemctl is-active foo && ! systemctl is-failed \
> foo;
>
> Presumably you could even write a shell function to do this if that's
> something that you actually wanted.
>
> > You can certainly run these commands afterwards, and get the status of
> > the service that way, but that's no substitute for being able to get
> > output or the like directly from the original control command.
> >
> > Does systemd really not provide any "verbose" mode for its
> > service-control commands, in which they report what they are doing?
>
> No. Really, all systemctl start/stop do is tell systemd to actually stop
> or start the service, and optionally block until the action is
> completed.
>
> I suppose someone could make an argument that including a verbose flag
> or something might be useful, but considering that you can achieve
> similar functionality with existing discrete tools, I'm not sure that
> growing additional code and documentation to support such an option is
> worth it.
>
> Look at the definition of start_unit in
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/systemctl/systemctl.c
> for the current code.
>
>
> --
> Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Hey guys!

 Thanks for all the replies! I really appreciate it.

 Now, I'm understanding more about it, I'm fine with "is-active |
is-failed" systemd options.

 Nevertheless, I think that it is weird that systemd is very different
from what I've experienced in the past 20 years. For example, why the
service's configuration files are stored at
"/lib/systemd/system/*.service" and not directly under /etc? For God's
sake...

 I thought that Debian had rules to organize its file system. For
example, with CentOS / RedHat, when you install "httpd", it puts a
symlink under /etc/httpd pointing to /var/log!! This means that RedHat
doesn't care about any HUGE mess on its file system, and that is
precisely why I'm a Debian user, because it is very well organized.
But now, unfortunately, I'm thinking about this kind of FS
organizations, again... Am I alone?

 BTW, sorry about the off-topic subject... But I would like to chat a
bit with you guys...  :-P

Cheers!
Thiago