On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:21:29AM +0700, Neutron Soutmun wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Guido Günther <a...@sigxcpu.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:22:46PM +0700, Neutron Soutmun wrote: > >> To reproduce this, make the virtlockd.service inactive (it's already > >> inactive on my laptop on upgrade, not by this command) > >> > >> # systemctl stop virtlockd.service > >> Warning: Stopping virtlockd.service, but it can still be activated by: > >> virtlockd.socket > > > > That's exactly what I did (see my other reply) and with > > > > systemctl stop virtlockd.service && systemctl reload virtlockd.service ; > > echo $? > > > > it returns 0 with systemd 204. Can you confirm it behaves differently > > with another version? If so we should report this to the systemd > > maintainers since it's a important behviour change. > > # systemctl stop virtlockd.service && systemctl reload > virtlockd.service ; echo $? > Warning: Stopping virtlockd.service, but it can still be activated by: > virtlockd.socket Job for virtlockd.service failed. See 'systemctl > status virtlockd.service' and 'journalctl -xn' for details. > 1 > > It returns 1 with systemd 208-8
Thanks for verifying. I've filed for that 759098. Nevertheless a libvirt that works around this is on it's way into the archive too. Thanks for reporting back! Cheers, -- Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
