Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Martin Pitt  wrote:
> Tom H [2015-08-18 9:33 -0400]:
>>
>> # When this machine is running systemd, standard service calls are turned 
>> into
>> # systemctl calls.
>> 
>>
>> And this is what you want for the sake of consistency.
>>
>> I don't understand how "/etc/init.d/postfix status" is diverted to
>> systemctl for postfix but it is.
>
> FYI, this is via /lib/lsb/init-functions.d/40-systemd that gets run
> through the standard /lib/lsb/init-functions which every SysV init
> script is supposed to source.

Many thanks. I'd intended to lok into this during lunch today. :)

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Martin Pitt]

Tom H [2015-08-18  9:33 -0400]:
> # When this machine is running systemd, standard service calls are turned into
> # systemctl calls.
> 
> 
> And this is what you want for the sake of consistency.
> 
> I don't understand how "/etc/init.d/postfix status" is diverted to
> systemctl for postfix but it is.

FYI, this is via /lib/lsb/init-functions.d/40-systemd that gets run
through the standard /lib/lsb/init-functions which every SysV init
script is supposed to source.

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Martin Pitt  wrote:
> Tom H [2015-08-18  5:40 -0400]:


>> Unless Ubuntu decides "we're going to provide native systemd units for
>> all packages that have sysvrc scripts in Ubuntu version X", these
>> units'll be provided at whatever pace the maintainers of packages with
>> sysvrc scripts choose to do so; and it's not a big deal.
>
> It's not a question of "decide", but to actually go ahead and do it.
> It's quite obviously better to have native units as they are both
> upstreamable (and thus improve inter-distro collaboration and
> documentation), and allow you to actually use the powers of a modern
> init system.

I guess that Ubuntu doesn't function this way but what I meant by
"decides" was Ubuntu "management" deciding that all packages must
provide systemd units.


> Over time this will happen, but I doubt that SysV init scripts will
> entirely go away anytime soon. At least you need the support for
> third-party packages, and LSB mandates them.

I didn't mean that sysvrc scripts disappear. I meant that both be
provided, at least at long as Debian allows sysvinit as an init, so
that daemons be launched and managed via systemd units rather than by
sysvrc scripts.

I don't think that Fedora still provides sysvrc scripts for packages
that have systemd units; I doubt that Arch does but I don't use it.
Gentoo's openrc scripts don't have LSB headers. Slackware doesn't have
sysvrc scripts. The LSB's pretty much irrelevant outside of Debian and
its derivatives. What's a leader without followers? A man taking a
walk...

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Ralf Mardorf
 wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:52:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ralf Mardorf
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:32:42 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:


 unfounded FUD
>>>
>>> What next?
>>>
>>> Actually everything I pointed out is correct, it's not unfounded FUD.
>>> Even you mentioned that not all services are ported over.
>>>
>>> It's not that hard for me to make a profound comparison between an
>>> Arch Linux install, that finished the transition 3 years ago and
>>> follows systemd from upstream and an Ubuntu Wily install, since they
>>> are running on the same machine and I'm using an upstream systemd
>>> with all services ported.
>>>
>>> You actually don't know what you are talking about, if you call
>>> Ubuntus systemd implementation transparent. It's a mess, the
>>> transition is _not_ finished, init related files are spread over
>>> different locations.
>>
>> You might have a point if systemd upstream didn't provide
>> systemd-sysv-generator and systemd-sysv-install.
>>
>> Ubuntu and Debian are simply using upstream tools that allow for
>> hybrid init systems.
>
> As pointed out by previous mails.
>
> The FHS still allows distros to put files to different locations,
> e.g. Ubuntu's /etc/init.d/ could be /etc/rc.d/ or /usr/bin/ for other
> distros.

What does the FHS have to do with init.d/rc.d or service/systemctl/...?!


> So the well-known service-wrapper individually written for those
> different distros made it easy to write scripts e.g. checking the
> status.
>
> Now Ubuntu does provide a wrapper, that assumed a script tries to check
> the status, instead does provide what systemctl status provides.
>
> 1. systemctl status provides this kind of status information, so why
> doing it by service too?

For the sake of continuity. People might still use "service" in
scripts or because it's hard-wired in their fingers.

You're complaining about Ubuntu providing a hydrid init system but
you're also complaining when it updates new tools to provide native
systemd output!


> 2. Now all old scripts usable with different distros using the
> service wrapper can't be used with Ubuntu anymore.

They can be used but they've been updated to match the default init
system's output.

IIRC, service's status used to output "daemon is running" not what
systemctl outputs, and not what your "/etc/init.d/rtsomething status"
output.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Martin Pitt  wrote:
> Tom H [2015-08-18 4:49 -0400]:


>>> update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d are tools for package maintainers only (to
>>> be used from pre/postinst scripts) and only applies to sysv-init
>>> scripts ...
>>
>> Yes and no. They are meant for maintainer scripts but update-rc.d is
>> needed by admins for enabling/disabling daemons because there isn't
>> another tool available in Debian and Ubuntu.
>
> Right, and it's the very tool to do just that. What gives the
> impression that it is a maintainer scipt-only tool?

You can find many statements by Debian developers to that effect.

I suspect that it was due to its complex syntax pre-insserv:

update-rc.d daemon start 80 2 3 4 5 . stop 20 0 1 6 .

Why would Debian have created "service" if not because it didn't want
its users to use "invoke-rc.d"?


>> There was a Debian bug for service, the admin equivalent of
>> invoke-rc.d, to be enhanced to forward "service daemon enable|disable"
>> to update-rc.d in order to provide an admin interface but the Debian
>> systemd and upstart maintainers requested that this work with their
>> respective toys and the bug went nowhere.
>
> That would make things even more confusing IMHO. "service" is for
> runtime starting/stopping, "update-rc.d" for configuring which
> services start at boot. It has worked like that forever in
> Debian/Ubuntu, with any init system.

As a mostly RHEL admin until recently, I agree with you because

1) It would've made more sense to have a separate executable, perhaps
by adding (possibly modifying) chkconfig to the sysv-rc package (it's
packaged in Debian; it's not currently packaged in Ubuntu).

2) It would've meant that service on Ubuntu would've behaved
differently that on RHEL (and Solaris of old and possibly others),
although it would make sense to start/stop/enable/disable a daemon
with the same base command.

But this was discussed on debian-devel@ and there was an RFE bug
report opened for it.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Ralf Mardorf
 wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:40:23 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> It's a bit messy, SOMETIMES.


> I'm aware that it wasn't you who blamed me for spreading "unfounded
> FUD", it was Oliver and at the same time he mentioned backwards
> compatibility, inter-distro-compatibility, the feature that one command
> does it all.

I don't care about FUD or whatever.


> AFAIK Ubuntu's systemd implementation doesn't provide any of those
> three advantages, it brakes all three advantages [1].
>
> The wrapper-workaround-approach leads to misinformation [1].
>
> The mess could be avoided without much work, e.g. for
>
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/all/rtirq-init/filelist
>
> The Ubuntu maintainer just needs to correct the location and add a
> service file, but even if you would provide the service file and
> corrected file locations for the maintainer, you can't contribute to
> Ubuntu. It's recommended to get in contact with Debian maintainers.
>
> [1]
> For example:
>
> Imagine you'll maintain your install, using a workflow that can be used
> for a clean systemd install.
>
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-unit-files | grep alice
> alice.service  enabled
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-unit-files | grep rtirq
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$
>
> Looks like rtirq isn't enabled, but de facto it's enabled.
>
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-units | grep alice
> alice.service
> loaded active exitedAlice PPPoE
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-units | grep rtirq
> rtirq.service
> loaded active exitedLSB: Realtime IRQ thread tunning.
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl status alice | grep active Active:
> active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:32 CEST; 13h ago
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl status rtirq | grep active Active:
> active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:33 CEST; 13h ago
>
> Regarding backwards compatibility, there is no backwards compatibility
> when using the service wrapper.
> Please correct me when I'm mistaken, didn't the service wrapper in the
> past do the same as /etc/init.d/foo status does?
>
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ service rtirq status
> ● rtirq.service - LSB: Realtime IRQ thread tunning.
>Loaded: loaded (/etc/init.d/rtirq)
>Active: active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:33 CEST; 13h ago
>  Docs: man:systemd-sysv-generator(8)
>
> Warning: Journal has been rotated since unit was started. Log output is
> incomplete or unavailable.
>
> [weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ /etc/init.d/rtirq status
>
>   PID CLS RTPRIO  NI PRI %CPU STAT COMMAND
>   385 FF  90   - 130  0.0 Sirq/18-snd_hdsp
>   387 FF  85   - 125  0.0 Sirq/20-snd_ice1
>   388 FF  84   - 124  0.0 Sirq/21-snd_ice1
>35 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/9-acpi
>60 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/19-ehci_hcd
>61 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/16-ohci_hcd
>62 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/17-ohci_hcd
>63 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/18-ohci_hcd
>64 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/17-ohci_hcd
>66 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/18-ohci_hcd
>67 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/1-i8042
>68 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/8-rtc0
>   135 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/22-:00:
>   145 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/14-pata_ati
>   149 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/15-pata_ati
>   157 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/22-firewire
>   164 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/27-radeon
>   275 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/7-parport0
>   786 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/26-enp3s0
> 3 TS   -   0  19  0.0 Sksoftirqd/0
>17 TS   -   0  19  0.0 Sksoftirqd/1

Strange.

This is on my laptop running 15.10.

# systemctl --version
systemd 224
+PAM +AUDIT +SELINUX +IMA +APPARMOR +SMACK +SYSVINIT +UTMP
+LIBCRYPTSETUP +GCRYPT -GNUTLS +ACL +XZ -LZ4 +SECCOMP +BLKID -ELFUTILS
+KMOD -IDN

# find /lib/systemd/system -name "*postfix*"

# find /etc/init.d -name "*postfix*"
/etc/init.d/postfix

# find /run/systemd -name "*postfix*"
/run/systemd/generator.late/postfix.service
/run/systemd/generator.late/graphical.target.wants/postfix.service
/run/systemd/generator.late/multi-user.target.wants/postfix.service
/run/systemd/generator/mail-transport-agent.target.d/50-hard-dependency-postfix-$mail-transport-agent.conf
/run/systemd/generator/postfix.service.d
/run/systemd/generator/postfix.service.d/50-postfix-$mail-transport-agent.conf

# systemctl | grep postfix
postfix.service loaded active running LSB: Postfix Mail Transport Agent

# systemctl status postfix.service
● postfix.service - LSB: Postfix Mail Transport Agent
   Loaded: loaded (/etc/init.d/postfix)
  Drop-In: /run/systemd/generator/postfix.service.d
   └─50-postfix-$mail-transport-agent.conf
   Active: active (running) since Sun 2015-08-16 03:56:28 EDT; 2 days ago


# service postfix status
● postfix.service - LSB: Postfix Mail Transport Agent
   Loaded: loaded (/etc/i

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:36:17 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>Imagine you'll maintain your install, using a workflow that can be used
>for a clean systemd install.
>
>[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-unit-files | grep alice
>alice.service  enabled 
>[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-unit-files | grep rtirq
>[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$
>
>
>
>Looks like rtirq isn't enabled, but de facto it's enabled.
>
>[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-units | grep alice
>alice.service
>loaded active exitedAlice PPPoE
>[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-units | grep rtirq
>rtirq.service
>loaded active exitedLSB: Realtime IRQ thread tunning.
>[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl status alice | grep active Active:
>active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:32 CEST; 13h ago
>[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl status rtirq | grep active Active:
>active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:33 CEST; 13h ago

You might say, simply don't use "list-unit-files" and you might find one
workaround after the other, but then there's no compatibility among
different distros and the list of workarounds becomes longer and longer.

Let's say you'll maintain several installs by a script using
  sudo systemd-nspawn -qD /mnt/point systemctl foo
then you can't simply avoid using "list-unit-files".

[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ sudo systemd-nspawn -qD /mnt/archlinux/
[sudo] password for weremouse: 
Failed to create directory /mnt/archlinux/sys/fs/selinux: Read-only file system
Failed to create directory /mnt/archlinux/sys/fs/selinux: Read-only file system
[root@archlinux ~]# systemctl list-units
Failed to get D-Bus connection: Operation not permitted
[root@archlinux ~]# systemctl status rtirq
Failed to get D-Bus connection: Operation not permitted
[root@archlinux ~]# systemctl list-unit-files | grep rtirq
rtirq.service  enabled 
[root@archlinux ~]# logout
[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$

Do you understand now why I call it a mess? Try to maintain Ubuntu from
another install by systemd-nspawn with scripts you use for other systemd
distros too.

-- 
Full text of "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto"
http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,

Am Dienstag, den 18.08.2015, 13:00 +0200 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Tom H [2015-08-18  4:49 -0400]:
> > > update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d are tools for package maintainers only (to
> > > be used from pre/postinst scripts) and only applies to sysv-init
> > > scripts ...
> > 
> > Yes and no. They are meant for maintainer scripts but update-rc.d is
> > needed by admins for enabling/disabling daemons because there isn't
> > another tool available in Debian and Ubuntu.
> 
> Right, and it's the very tool to do just that. What gives the
> impression that it is a maintainer scipt-only tool?
> 
old documentation :) 
the invoke.rc.d and update-rc.d manpages used to have a warning in the
past (i just checked, now neither does have the "dont use as enduser"
warning anymore but that used to be there)

ciao
oli


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Martin Pitt]

Tom H [2015-08-18  5:40 -0400]:
> Unless Ubuntu decides "we're going to provide native systemd units for
> all packages that have sysvrc scripts in Ubuntu version X", these
> units'll be provided at whatever pace the maintainers of packages with
> sysvrc scripts choose to do so; and it's not a big deal.

It's not a question of "decide", but to actually go ahead and do it.
It's quite obviously better to have native units as they are both
upstreamable (and thus improve inter-distro collaboration and
documentation), and allow you to actually use the powers of a modern
init system.

Over time this will happen, but I doubt that SysV init scripts will
entirely go away anytime soon. At least you need the support for
third-party packages, and LSB mandates them.

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:52:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ralf Mardorf
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:32:42 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>>
>>> unfounded FUD
>>
>> What next?
>>
>> Actually everything I pointed out is correct, it's not unfounded FUD.
>> Even you mentioned that not all services are ported over.
>>
>> It's not that hard for me to make a profound comparison between an
>> Arch Linux install, that finished the transition 3 years ago and
>> follows systemd from upstream and an Ubuntu Wily install, since they
>> are running on the same machine and I'm using an upstream systemd
>> with all services ported.
>>
>> You actually don't know what you are talking about, if you call
>> Ubuntus systemd implementation transparent. It's a mess, the
>> transition is _not_ finished, init related files are spread over
>> different locations.
>
>You might have a point if systemd upstream didn't provide
>systemd-sysv-generator and systemd-sysv-install.
>
>Ubuntu and Debian are simply using upstream tools that allow for
>hybrid init systems.

As pointed out by previous mails.

The FHS still allows distros to put files to different locations,
e.g. Ubuntu's /etc/init.d/ could be /etc/rc.d/ or /usr/bin/ for other
distros.

So the well-known service-wrapper individually written for those
different distros made it easy to write scripts e.g. checking the
status.

Now Ubuntu does provide a wrapper, that assumed a script tries to check
the status, instead does provide what systemctl status provides.

1. systemctl status provides this kind of status information, so why
doing it by service too?
2. Now all old scripts usable with different distros using the
service wrapper can't be used with Ubuntu anymore.

This issue isn't caused by systemd upstream.

-- 
Full text of "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto"
http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Martin Pitt]

Tom H [2015-08-18  4:49 -0400]:
> > update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d are tools for package maintainers only (to
> > be used from pre/postinst scripts) and only applies to sysv-init
> > scripts ...
> 
> Yes and no. They are meant for maintainer scripts but update-rc.d is
> needed by admins for enabling/disabling daemons because there isn't
> another tool available in Debian and Ubuntu.

Right, and it's the very tool to do just that. What gives the
impression that it is a maintainer scipt-only tool?

> There was a Debian bug for service, the admin equivalent of
> invoke-rc.d, to be enhanced to forward "service daemon enable|disable"
> to update-rc.d in order to provide an admin interface but the Debian
> systemd and upstart maintainers requested that this work with their
> respective toys and the bug went nowhere.

That would make things even more confusing IMHO. "service" is for
runtime starting/stopping, "update-rc.d" for configuring which
services start at boot. It has worked like that forever in
Debian/Ubuntu, with any init system.

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:40:23 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>It's a bit messy, SOMETIMES.

Hi Tom,

I'm aware that it wasn't you who blamed me for spreading "unfounded
FUD", it was Oliver and at the same time he mentioned backwards
compatibility, inter-distro-compatibility, the feature that one command
does it all.

AFAIK Ubuntu's systemd implementation doesn't provide any of those
three advantages, it brakes all three advantages [1].

The wrapper-workaround-approach leads to misinformation [1].

The mess could be avoided without much work, e.g. for

http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty/all/rtirq-init/filelist

The Ubuntu maintainer just needs to correct the location and add a
service file, but even if you would provide the service file and
corrected file locations for the maintainer, you can't contribute to
Ubuntu. It's recommended to get in contact with Debian maintainers.



[1]
For example:

Imagine you'll maintain your install, using a workflow that can be used
for a clean systemd install.

[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-unit-files | grep alice
alice.service  enabled 
[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-unit-files | grep rtirq
[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$



Looks like rtirq isn't enabled, but de facto it's enabled.

[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-units | grep alice
alice.service
loaded active exitedAlice PPPoE
[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl list-units | grep rtirq
rtirq.service
loaded active exitedLSB: Realtime IRQ thread tunning.
[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl status alice | grep active Active:
active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:32 CEST; 13h ago
[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ systemctl status rtirq | grep active Active:
active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:33 CEST; 13h ago



Regarding backwards compatibility, there is no backwards compatibility
when using the service wrapper.
Please correct me when I'm mistaken, didn't the service wrapper in the
past do the same as /etc/init.d/foo status does?

[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ service rtirq status
● rtirq.service - LSB: Realtime IRQ thread tunning.
   Loaded: loaded (/etc/init.d/rtirq)
   Active: active (exited) since Mon 2015-08-17 22:55:33 CEST; 13h ago
 Docs: man:systemd-sysv-generator(8)

Warning: Journal has been rotated since unit was started. Log output is
incomplete or unavailable.

[weremouse@moonstudio ~]$ /etc/init.d/rtirq status

  PID CLS RTPRIO  NI PRI %CPU STAT COMMAND  
  385 FF  90   - 130  0.0 Sirq/18-snd_hdsp  
  387 FF  85   - 125  0.0 Sirq/20-snd_ice1  
  388 FF  84   - 124  0.0 Sirq/21-snd_ice1  
   35 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/9-acpi   
   60 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/19-ehci_hcd  
   61 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/16-ohci_hcd  
   62 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/17-ohci_hcd  
   63 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/18-ohci_hcd  
   64 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/17-ohci_hcd  
   66 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/18-ohci_hcd  
   67 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/1-i8042  
   68 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/8-rtc0   
  135 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/22-:00:  
  145 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/14-pata_ati  
  149 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/15-pata_ati  
  157 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/22-firewire  
  164 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/27-radeon
  275 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/7-parport0   
  786 FF  50   -  90  0.0 Sirq/26-enp3s0
3 TS   -   0  19  0.0 Sksoftirqd/0  
   17 TS   -   0  19  0.0 Sksoftirqd/1  

Regards,
Ralf

-- 
Full text of "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto"
http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 20:43 +0200 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Oliver Grawert [2015-08-17 15:24 +0200]:
> > if you need to prevent an upstart service from starting on boot you need
> > to create a .override files containing the word "manual", as described
> > in your askubuntu links. i dont think there exists a tool to do that for
> > you (and such a tool would be quite overkill to replace a one liner
> > anyway :) )
> 
> "update-rc.d enable|disable" actually does work for upstart jobs (by
> creating said override files) just as well as it works for SysV init
> and systemd units.
> 
ah, thanks for the correction :)

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

n Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Martin Pitt  wrote:
> Oliver Grawert [2015-08-17 15:24 +0200]:
>>
>> if you need to prevent an upstart service from starting on boot you need
>> to create a .override files containing the word "manual", as described
>> in your askubuntu links. i dont think there exists a tool to do that for
>> you (and such a tool would be quite overkill to replace a one liner
>> anyway :) )
>
> "update-rc.d enable|disable" actually does work for upstart jobs (by
> creating said override files) just as well as it works for SysV init
> and systemd units.

Thanks. Had no idea. Was surprised so googled and found:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=733289

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ralf Mardorf
 wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:32:42 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>
>> unfounded FUD
>
> What next?
>
> Actually everything I pointed out is correct, it's not unfounded FUD.
> Even you mentioned that not all services are ported over.
>
> It's not that hard for me to make a profound comparison between an Arch
> Linux install, that finished the transition 3 years ago and follows
> systemd from upstream and an Ubuntu Wily install, since they are running
> on the same machine and I'm using an upstream systemd with all services
> ported.
>
> You actually don't know what you are talking about, if you call Ubuntus
> systemd implementation transparent. It's a mess, the transition is
> _not_ finished, init related files are spread over different locations.

You might have a point if systemd upstream didn't provide
systemd-sysv-generator and systemd-sysv-install.

Ubuntu and Debian are simply using upstream tools that allow for
hybrid init systems.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:56 AM, João M. S. Silva
 wrote:
>
> The specific problem here is that modemmanager depends on network-manager:
>
> $ cat /etc/init/modemmanager.conf
> (...)
> start on starting network-manager
> stop on stopped network-manager
> (...)
>
> But I don't need network-manager and all of its dependencies on this server.
>
> I'd just like to start modemmanager at boot without network-manager
> installed. But this seems not possible unless I manually edit the .conf
> file.

Please bottom-post.

If modemmanager can function without networkmanager, you can create
"/etc/init/modemmanager.override" with different start/stop
conditions.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Ralf Mardorf
 wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:43:50 -0400, Luis Mondesi wrote:
>>
>> When you do a clean install of 15.10 you get the Full Systemd
>> Experience ™ It's very awkward for the first 30 seconds or so, but one
>> gets used to its quirks very fast.
>>
>> Cannot really complaint about it. Just continue on...
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
> For my everyday production environment I run Arch Linux since February
> 2012 with a clean systemd.
>
> This year in July I installed Wily from the server ISO on this
> multi-boot machine. What I got wasn't a "Full Systemd Experience", but
> a mess with init scripts and wrappers/workarounds.
>
> Btw. I'm still not used to systemd after using it for around 3 years,
> but for my workflow a clean systemd at least is easier to handle, than
> the Wily hybrid.
>
> You might get used to the Wily hybrid systemd within 30 seconds, you
> also might get used to a clean systemd within 30 seconds, but Wily
> definitively is a mix including init script and wrappers/workarounds and
> absolutely _not_ a "Full Systemd Experience".

1) Neither upstart nor systemd could've been introduced without being
able to handle sysvrc scripts.

2) The Ubuntu patches are in
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/patches?h=ubuntu/224-1ubuntu3
although not all Ubuntu changes are here. For example, if a systemd
unit replaces a sysvrc script but has a different name, there'll be a
symlink to "/dev/null" for that script in "/lib/systemd/system/" so
this must be done by something else in "debian/" (I haven't looked for
it).

I doubt that they make your Arch systemd very different from your
Ubuntu systemd (other than being in /usr/lib rather than /lib) except
for:

a) Ubuntu disables systemd's vconsole feature and uses its own
console-setup package instead.

b) Ubuntu doesn't provide a systemd service for all of its daemons so
some daemons are launched by scripts in "/etc/init.d/" via
runtime-generated systemd files in "/run/systemd/generator.late/".
It's a bit messy, SOMETIMES.

Even though I don't use systemd on Gentoo, I prefer its setup whereby
systemd doesn't use anything in "/etc/init.d/". It had a choice
between adapting systemd to understand openrc scripts and adding
systemd units to as many packages as possible and it chose the latter.
I doubt that it even considered the former.

Unless Ubuntu decides "we're going to provide native systemd units for
all packages that have sysvrc scripts in Ubuntu version X", these
units'll be provided at whatever pace the maintainers of packages with
sysvrc scripts choose to do so; and it's not a big deal.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Oliver Grawert  wrote:
> Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 12:38 +0100 schrieb João M. S. Silva:


First a correction. I meant to say "as in Debian for sysv damons" not
"as in Debian".

This is the problem with hybrid init setups.

With upstart, we could use update-rc.d for sysv init daemons and "echo
manual > /etc/init/daemon.override" for upstart daemons.

With systemd, the latter's replaced by "systemctl disable daemon[.service]".

The upstart way isn't too much of a PitA but having a "native" command
makes Ubuntu more like other systems that are in use.



>> does it mean I'm not using systemd? I don't seem to have systemd
>> installed (Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS).
>
> update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d are tools for package maintainers only (to
> be used from pre/postinst scripts) and only applies to sysv-init
> scripts ...

Yes and no. They are meant for maintainer scripts but update-rc.d is
needed by admins for enabling/disabling daemons because there isn't
another tool available in Debian and Ubuntu.

There was a Debian bug for service, the admin equivalent of
invoke-rc.d, to be enhanced to forward "service daemon enable|disable"
to update-rc.d in order to provide an admin interface but the Debian
systemd and upstart maintainers requested that this work with their
respective toys and the bug went nowhere.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Martin Pitt]

Oliver Grawert [2015-08-17 15:24 +0200]:
> if you need to prevent an upstart service from starting on boot you need
> to create a .override files containing the word "manual", as described
> in your askubuntu links. i dont think there exists a tool to do that for
> you (and such a tool would be quite overkill to replace a one liner
> anyway :) )

"update-rc.d enable|disable" actually does work for upstart jobs (by
creating said override files) just as well as it works for SysV init
and systemd units.

> note that by debian policy a service shipped in a deb is required to
> always start, the debian assumption is that you uninstall the deb if you
> do not want to run the service ([1] has some details). 

For the record, in the systemd world you can do that with (local)
presets. We just don't respect them yet, that's a rather long-standing
TODO in the Debian/Ubuntu packages.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:37:04 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>i havent called anything transparent, you have called "the boot process
>a mess" and pointed to pointless proof

I was speaking about transparency and I called the absence of
transparency a mess. Your claim is, that it isn't a mess, so the
conclusion in this context is, that you claim it's transparent, clear.

Please quote me were I mentioned the boot process. I could say
something about the boot process, but this would be more
off-topic. One keyword could be "race conditions", another keyword
perhaps "documentation".

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:22:52 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>as i understand it the introduction of systemctl was to overcome the
>fragmentation of managing services in different distros so that you
>dont have a debian way, and ubuntu way or a fedora way (i.e. chkconfig)
>anymore.

There is the filesystem hierarchy standard, but within this standard
Linux distros differ a lot. It's more important to know were the files
are, instead of having one command. As long as the files are human
readable files, dash or bash scripts and we know the locations, it's
not so hard to use different distros with different init systems.
Mixing systemd with init scripts, the issue with the locations
increases.

Btw. one of the few good features of systemd is systemd-nspawn, but
unfortunately I noticed that this sometimes fails.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 18:13 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:32:42 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >unfounded FUD
> 
> What next?
> 
> Actually everything I pointed out is correct, it's not unfounded FUD.
> Even you mentioned that not all services are ported over.

neither the organization of packaging nor the fact that sysvinit
compatibility is enabled has any influence on the boot *process* 

and these are the two things you pointed out and accused to make the
boot *process* a mess ... 

the boot process is not influenced at all by packaging, nor is managing
the sysvinit compatibility services via systemctl in any way influenced
by the compatibility layer, i still fail to see any prof that the boot
process of ubuntu is in any way messy. 

> 
> It's not that hard for me to make a profound comparison between an Arch
> Linux install, that finished the transition 3 years ago and follows
> systemd from upstream and an Ubuntu Wily install, since they are running
> on the same machine and I'm using an upstream systemd with all services
> ported.
so why werent all these systemd units pushed upstream for all 5000-1
packages that exist out there and require any kind of service start
scripts ? if they were, they could just be easily re-used by debian from
their upstream sources.

> 
> You actually don't know what you are talking about, if you call Ubuntus
> systemd implementation transparent. It's a mess, the transition is
> _not_ finished, init related files are spread over different locations.

i havent called anything transparent, you have called "the boot process
a mess" and pointed to pointless proof ... neither is the process a mess
nor is the proof you pointed to any proof for the process being a mess.
the process is identical to any other systemd distro out there, as is
the maintaining of the process via systemctl ... 

you might not like the setup, the package arrangements or anything here,
or that an upstart pacckage exists in the archive (note there is a
sysv-init package too) but that has no influence on the boot *process*,
which is not different to any other systemd distro out there.

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 12:05 -0400 schrieb Luis Mondesi:
>  A chkconfig like tool is needed, even if it's overkill. 

what is wrong with using upstreams systemctl to manage services ? 
this is what systemd upstream proposes and what is used in ubuntu and
debian (and hopefully everywhere else) to manage your service startup.

as i understand it the introduction of systemctl was to overcome the
fragmentation of managing services in different distros so that you dont
have a debian way, and ubuntu way or a fedora way (i.e. chkconfig)
anymore.

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:32:42 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>unfounded FUD

What next?

Actually everything I pointed out is correct, it's not unfounded FUD.
Even you mentioned that not all services are ported over.

It's not that hard for me to make a profound comparison between an Arch
Linux install, that finished the transition 3 years ago and follows
systemd from upstream and an Ubuntu Wily install, since they are running
on the same machine and I'm using an upstream systemd with all services
ported.

You actually don't know what you are talking about, if you call Ubuntus
systemd implementation transparent. It's a mess, the transition is
_not_ finished, init related files are spread over different locations.

Such a _mess_ is unusual for Unix alike operating systems such as
FreeBSD, Linux etc., despite of the used init system and used
filesystem hierarchy standard.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Luis Mondesi]

> Hi Luis,
> 
> I strongly disagree.
> 
> For my everyday production environment I run Arch Linux since February
> 2012 with a clean systemd.
> 
> This year in July I installed Wily from the server ISO on this
> multi-boot machine. What I got wasn't a "Full Systemd Experience", but
> a mess with init scripts and wrappers/workarounds.
> 
> Btw. I'm still not used to systemd after using it for around 3 years,
> but for my workflow a clean systemd at least is easier to handle, than
> the Wily hybrid.
> 
> You might get used to the Wily hybrid systemd within 30 seconds, you
> also might get used to a clean systemd within 30 seconds, but Wily
> definitively is a mix including init script and wrappers/workarounds and
> absolutely _not_ a "Full Systemd Experience".
> 
> Regards,
> Ralf

Well argued, thanks Ralf.
It would definitely be better if/when every script changes to systemd way of 
doing things. However, we know inertia won't let that happen. People are 
content with the things that work. 
I find plenty of problems with not having simple tools that allow you to 
quickly sort through mundane tasks. A chkconfig like tool is needed, even if 
it's overkill. 
Having to remember to create a file with a filename matching some string and 
update with some command, while being sure it's a full moon and it's before 
midnight on a Friday, it's just too much. 

Simple works best. Same command for all init systems. The documentation becomes 
very easy and newbies get the full Sysadmin Experience ™ from the get go. 

In any case, you're correct Ralf that the experience is not the best. 

--
Luis
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 17:20 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:03:02 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >ubuntus upstream is debian in this case ...
> 
> ... but systemd's upstream is _not_ Debian.
no, but you blame ubuntu for technical debian decisions here ...

martin pitt and michael biebl work pretty closely with the systemd
upstream community, feel free to review the upstream commits for his
patches if you feel like.

> 
> I already wrote:
> >>it's off topic and we don't need to discuss it.
> 
well, you are spreading unfounded FUD about technical setup on a
technical discussion list, i find that very much on topic ...

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

Thanks Oli, it works OK with:

$ cat /etc/init/modemmanager.override
start on starting dbus
stop on stopped dbus

I think network-manager is only needed if you want to establish an 
Internet connection over the HSDPA modem or so.


In this case I only use it to send SMS, etc. so I don't need networking.

On 08/17/2015 03:46 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:

hi,
Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 15:36 +0100 schrieb João M. S. Silva:

Yes, it is:

$ dpkg -l|grep network-manager
$ dpkg -l|grep modemmanager
ii  modemmanager1.0.0-2ubuntu1
  amd64D-Bus service for managing modems

Thanks Oli, that sounds reasonable. I tried it but:

$ service modemmanager status
modemmanager stop/waiting

$ dmesg |grep -i modemmanager
[2.888050] init: modemmanager main process ended, respawning
[2.923251] init: modemmanager main process ended, respawning
(...)
[3.731722] init: modemmanager respawning too fast, stopped

a wild guess would be that modem-manager uses dbus, so adjust yopur
"start on" accordingly ... any perhaps it can not work at all without a
running network-manager, are you sure it can ?
also look at the upstart job log for your modem-manager job ... they
live in /var/log/upstart, that should have actual error messages.



$ cat modemmanager.override
# modemmanager - modem manager
#
# The ModemManager daemon manages the system's mobile broadband connections
# for NetworkManager.
#
# added by jmss

description "modem connection manager"

start on startup
stop on runlevel [!2345]


do not put the stuff below into your override, the .conf file already
covers it ... override files only replace the bits you define. just
leave the exec and whatnot as it is defined ... you only want start on/
stop on in your .override ...


respawn

pre-start script
  [ -x /usr/sbin/ModemManager ] || stop
end script

exec /usr/sbin/ModemManager



ciao
oli




--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:03:02 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>ubuntus upstream is debian in this case ...

... but systemd's upstream is _not_ Debian.

I already wrote:
>>it's off topic and we don't need to discuss it.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 16:46 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:56:34 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >hi,
> >Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 15:41 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> >  
> >> Btw. I'm still not used to systemd after using it for around 3 years,
> >> but for my workflow a clean systemd at least is easier to handle,
> >> than the Wily hybrid.
> >> 
> >> You might get used to the Wily hybrid systemd within 30 seconds, you
> >> also might get used to a clean systemd within 30 seconds, but Wily
> >> definitively is a mix including init script and wrappers/workarounds
> >> and absolutely _not_ a "Full Systemd Experience".  
> >
> >it is an advertised (and desired) systemd upstream feature to provide
> >sysvinit compatibility (like it was in upstart) ... there is nothing
> >messy in it, upstream encourages to use this to allow packages that
> >need a longer transition period to still work, so debian has it
> >enabled (and ubuntu simply inherits it). you can use systemctl on
> >these jobs the same way you can use it on native systemd units, so i
> >dont get where you see any difference in maintenance.  
> 
> There's noting wrong with providing the shutdown command, but if
> packages install "services" to different locations and as long as there
> are wrappers such as "service" it's a mess.
> 
> Since you mention upstream, Ubuntu doesn't care much about upstream by
> splitting packages. 
ubuntus upstream is debian in this case ... 

> For what reason is
> a package for upstart still available?
upstart is used for desktop sessions and does not provide the 
init binary

> Ubuntu's init process isn't transparent, it's a mess.

i dont get how a package split of udev (that comes from debian, nothing
ubuntu has done specifically here) has any influence on the "init
process being a mess" nor do i understand why an upstart package
existing in the archive would have any influence on that either,
sorry ... 

the init process in use is working along the upstream recommendations
with providing backwards compatibility to sysvinit until debian has
ported all services over (again, not an ubuntu thing, even though ubuntu
devs help debian with porting single services).

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:56:34 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>hi,
>Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 15:41 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
>  
>> Btw. I'm still not used to systemd after using it for around 3 years,
>> but for my workflow a clean systemd at least is easier to handle,
>> than the Wily hybrid.
>> 
>> You might get used to the Wily hybrid systemd within 30 seconds, you
>> also might get used to a clean systemd within 30 seconds, but Wily
>> definitively is a mix including init script and wrappers/workarounds
>> and absolutely _not_ a "Full Systemd Experience".  
>
>it is an advertised (and desired) systemd upstream feature to provide
>sysvinit compatibility (like it was in upstart) ... there is nothing
>messy in it, upstream encourages to use this to allow packages that
>need a longer transition period to still work, so debian has it
>enabled (and ubuntu simply inherits it). you can use systemctl on
>these jobs the same way you can use it on native systemd units, so i
>dont get where you see any difference in maintenance.  

There's noting wrong with providing the shutdown command, but if
packages install "services" to different locations and as long as there
are wrappers such as "service" it's a mess.

Since you mention upstream, Ubuntu doesn't care much about upstream by
splitting packages. Assumed Ubuntu isn't a hybrid, then why splitting
udev and systemd? They are merged by upstream. For what reason is
a package for upstart still available?

Ubuntu's init process isn't transparent, it's a mess.

As long as systemd and udev are different packages, as long as upstart
is available, as long as the service wrapper is provided, as long as
etc. ... the transition likely will continue for years and systemd is
not going to be transparent.

However, it's off topic and we don't need to discuss it. The OP doesn't
use systemd.

Regards,
Ralf

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 15:36 +0100 schrieb João M. S. Silva:
> Yes, it is:
> 
> $ dpkg -l|grep network-manager
> $ dpkg -l|grep modemmanager
> ii  modemmanager1.0.0-2ubuntu1 
>  amd64D-Bus service for managing modems
> 
> Thanks Oli, that sounds reasonable. I tried it but:
> 
> $ service modemmanager status
> modemmanager stop/waiting
> 
> $ dmesg |grep -i modemmanager
> [2.888050] init: modemmanager main process ended, respawning
> [2.923251] init: modemmanager main process ended, respawning
> (...)
> [3.731722] init: modemmanager respawning too fast, stopped
a wild guess would be that modem-manager uses dbus, so adjust yopur
"start on" accordingly ... any perhaps it can not work at all without a
running network-manager, are you sure it can ? 
also look at the upstart job log for your modem-manager job ... they
live in /var/log/upstart, that should have actual error messages.

> 
> $ cat modemmanager.override
> # modemmanager - modem manager
> #
> # The ModemManager daemon manages the system's mobile broadband connections
> # for NetworkManager.
> #
> # added by jmss
> 
> description   "modem connection manager"
> 
> start on startup
> stop on runlevel [!2345]
> 
do not put the stuff below into your override, the .conf file already
covers it ... override files only replace the bits you define. just
leave the exec and whatnot as it is defined ... you only want start on/
stop on in your .override ...

> respawn
> 
> pre-start script
>  [ -x /usr/sbin/ModemManager ] || stop
> end script
> 
> exec /usr/sbin/ModemManager
> 

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

Yes, it is:

$ dpkg -l|grep network-manager
$ dpkg -l|grep modemmanager
ii  modemmanager1.0.0-2ubuntu1 
amd64D-Bus service for managing modems


Thanks Oli, that sounds reasonable. I tried it but:

$ service modemmanager status
modemmanager stop/waiting

$ dmesg |grep -i modemmanager
[2.888050] init: modemmanager main process ended, respawning
[2.923251] init: modemmanager main process ended, respawning
(...)
[3.731722] init: modemmanager respawning too fast, stopped

$ cat modemmanager.override
# modemmanager - modem manager
#
# The ModemManager daemon manages the system's mobile broadband connections
# for NetworkManager.
#
# added by jmss

description "modem connection manager"

start on startup
stop on runlevel [!2345]

respawn

pre-start script
[ -x /usr/sbin/ModemManager ] || stop
end script

exec /usr/sbin/ModemManager

On 08/17/2015 03:21 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:

well, not sure it is possible to install the modemmanager deb without
having network-manager installed ...

wrt your upstart config you would simply put the new start on/stop on
lines you want it to use in your .override file, i.e.:

start on startup
stop on runlevel [!2345]

or some such ... you never edit .conf files directly, an update of teh
package would either just revert your changes or cause a debconf prompt
to review the diff.

ciao
oli




--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 14:56 +0100 schrieb João M. S. Silva:
> The specific problem here is that modemmanager depends on network-manager:
> 
> $ cat /etc/init/modemmanager.conf
> (...)
> start on starting network-manager
> stop on stopped network-manager
> (...)
> 
> But I don't need network-manager and all of its dependencies on this server.
> 
well, not sure it is possible to install the modemmanager deb without
having network-manager installed ... 

wrt your upstart config you would simply put the new start on/stop on
lines you want it to use in your .override file, i.e.:

start on startup
stop on runlevel [!2345]

or some such ... you never edit .conf files directly, an update of teh
package would either just revert your changes or cause a debconf prompt
to review the diff.

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

The specific problem here is that modemmanager depends on network-manager:

$ cat /etc/init/modemmanager.conf
(...)
start on starting network-manager
stop on stopped network-manager
(...)

But I don't need network-manager and all of its dependencies on this server.

I'd just like to start modemmanager at boot without network-manager 
installed. But this seems not possible unless I manually edit the .conf 
file.


On 08/17/2015 02:24 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:

Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 12:38 +0100 schrieb João M. S. Silva:


does it mean I'm not using systemd? I don't seem to have systemd
installed (Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS).


update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d are tools for package maintainers only (to
be used from pre/postinst scripts) and only applies to sysv-init
scripts ...

if you need to prevent an upstart service from starting on boot you need
to create a .override files containing the word "manual", as described
in your askubuntu links. i dont think there exists a tool to do that for
you (and such a tool would be quite overkill to replace a one liner
anyway :) )

note that by debian policy a service shipped in a deb is required to
always start, the debian assumption is that you uninstall the deb if you
do not want to run the service ([1] has some details).

ciao
oli

[1]
http://blog.zugschlus.de/archives/974-Debians-Policy-rc.d-infrastructure-explained.html




--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 15:41 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:

> Btw. I'm still not used to systemd after using it for around 3 years,
> but for my workflow a clean systemd at least is easier to handle, than
> the Wily hybrid.
> 
> You might get used to the Wily hybrid systemd within 30 seconds, you
> also might get used to a clean systemd within 30 seconds, but Wily
> definitively is a mix including init script and wrappers/workarounds and
> absolutely _not_ a "Full Systemd Experience".

it is an advertised (and desired) systemd upstream feature to provide
sysvinit compatibility (like it was in upstart) ... there is nothing
messy in it, upstream encourages to use this to allow packages that need
a longer transition period to still work, so debian has it enabled (and
ubuntu simply inherits it). you can use systemctl on these jobs the same
way you can use it on native systemd units, so i dont get where you see
any difference in maintenance.

ciao
oli


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:43:50 -0400, Luis Mondesi wrote:
>When you do a clean install of 15.10 you get the Full Systemd
>Experience ™ It's very awkward for the first 30 seconds or so, but one
>gets used to its quirks very fast. 
>
>Cannot really complaint about it. Just continue on...

Hi Luis,

I strongly disagree.

For my everyday production environment I run Arch Linux since February
2012 with a clean systemd.

This year in July I installed Wily from the server ISO on this
multi-boot machine. What I got wasn't a "Full Systemd Experience", but
a mess with init scripts and wrappers/workarounds.

Btw. I'm still not used to systemd after using it for around 3 years,
but for my workflow a clean systemd at least is easier to handle, than
the Wily hybrid.

You might get used to the Wily hybrid systemd within 30 seconds, you
also might get used to a clean systemd within 30 seconds, but Wily
definitively is a mix including init script and wrappers/workarounds and
absolutely _not_ a "Full Systemd Experience".

Regards,
Ralf

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Oliver Grawert]

Am Montag, den 17.08.2015, 12:38 +0100 schrieb João M. S. Silva:

> does it mean I'm not using systemd? I don't seem to have systemd 
> installed (Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS).

update-rc.d and invoke-rc.d are tools for package maintainers only (to
be used from pre/postinst scripts) and only applies to sysv-init
scripts ... 

if you need to prevent an upstart service from starting on boot you need
to create a .override files containing the word "manual", as described
in your askubuntu links. i dont think there exists a tool to do that for
you (and such a tool would be quite overkill to replace a one liner
anyway :) )

note that by debian policy a service shipped in a deb is required to
always start, the debian assumption is that you uninstall the deb if you
do not want to run the service ([1] has some details). 

ciao
oli

[1]
http://blog.zugschlus.de/archives/974-Debians-Policy-rc.d-infrastructure-explained.html


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Luis Mondesi]

> [root@moonstudio ~]# ls -l /bin/systemd /sbin/upstart
> ls: cannot access /sbin/upstart: No such file or directory
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Aug 12 16:58 /bin/systemd -> /lib/systemd/systemd
> 
> FWIW even for 15.10 it's a hybrid, not a clean systemd.

When you do a clean install of 15.10 you get the Full Systemd Experience ™
It's very awkward for the first 30 seconds or so, but one gets used to its 
quirks very fast. 

Cannot really complaint about it. Just continue on...

--
Luis
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:38:35 +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
>does it mean I'm not using systemd? I don't seem to have systemd 
>installed (Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS).

AFAIK systemd is default for 15.04 and 15.10 only.

[root@moonstudio ~]# dpkg -s systemd | grep -A1 Installing
 Installing the systemd package will not switch your init system unless you
 boot with init=/bin/systemd or install systemd-sysv in addition.
[root@moonstudio ~]# ls -l /bin/systemd /sbin/upstart
ls: cannot access /sbin/upstart: No such file or directory
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Aug 12 16:58 /bin/systemd -> /lib/systemd/systemd

FWIW even for 15.10 it's a hybrid, not a clean systemd.



-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

On 08/15/2015 09:02 AM, Tom H wrote:

If you're using systemd, you should be able to use
update-rc.d service enable
update-rc.d service disable
as in Debian


Since I get:

$ update-rc.d modemmanager enable
update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/modemmanager: file does not exist

does it mean I'm not using systemd? I don't seem to have systemd 
installed (Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS).


--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Tom H]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, João M. S. Silva
 wrote:
>
> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup service
> administration.
>
> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not already
> exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that seems the case:
>
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
>
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1

If you're using systemd, you should be able to use
update-rc.d service enable
update-rc.d service disable
as in Debian

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

I don't think there's chkconfig for Ubuntu:

$ apt-file search chkconfig
bash-completion: /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/chkconfig
libwx-perl: /usr/lib/perl5/Wx/cpp/chkconfig.h
lyx-common: /usr/share/lyx/chkconfig.ltx
manpages-tr: /usr/share/man/tr/man8/chkconfig.8.gz
zsh-common: /usr/share/zsh/functions/Completion/Unix/_chkconfig

$ chkconfig
chkconfig: command not found
(no package suggestions)

$ apt-cache search chkconfig
(no results)

On 08/05/2015 11:05 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:58:05PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:

What do you mean?

Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?


I haven't run ubuntu in a number of years so I may be wrong, but...it's
in the debian stable repos. I'm assuming it's available for ubuntu. Let
me know if I'm wrong.



On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:


 .snip.


Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?




--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Bob Holtzman]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 08:58:05PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
> What do you mean?
> 
> Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?

I haven't run ubuntu in a number of years so I may be wrong, but...it's
in the debian stable repos. I'm assuming it's available for ubuntu. Let
me know if I'm wrong. 

> 
> On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:

.snip.
> >
> >Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?

-- 

Bob Holtzman
A fair fight is the result of poor planning.


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

Maybe one could add enable/disable commands to service?

On 08/05/2015 02:43 AM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:

service command is available in both debian and ubuntu, and integrated
throughout to work with sysv, upstart and systemd...


--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

On 08/05/2015 05:09 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:

João M. S. Silva [2015-08-04 17:38 +0100]:

I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup service
administration.

It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not already
exist


It has existed forever in Debian and Ubuntu and is called update-rc.d,
see its manpage. It integrates with all init systems.


OK, so this is supposed to work:

$ update-rc.d modemmanager enable
update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/modemmanager: file does not exist

Is it a bug from the package maintainer who forgot to add this file?

--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Luis Mondesi]

Very nice. Thanks for the inside Martin. 

--
Luis

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 00:09, Martin Pitt  wrote:
> 
> João M. S. Silva [2015-08-04 17:38 +0100]:
>> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup service
>> administration.
>> 
>> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not already
>> exist
> 
> It has existed forever in Debian and Ubuntu and is called update-rc.d,
> see its manpage. It integrates with all init systems.
> 
> Wrt. the followup discussion, you can also use systemctl directly (it
> will call update-rc.d for SysV init scripts) in Ubuntu 15.04 and
> later.
> 
> Martin
> 
> -- 
> Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
> Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)
> 
> -- 
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Martin Pitt]

João M. S. Silva [2015-08-04 17:38 +0100]:
> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup service
> administration.
> 
> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not already
> exist

It has existed forever in Debian and Ubuntu and is called update-rc.d,
see its manpage. It integrates with all init systems.

Wrt. the followup discussion, you can also use systemctl directly (it
will call update-rc.d for SysV init scripts) in Ubuntu 15.04 and
later.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Dimitri John Ledkov]

On 4 August 2015 at 23:28, Luis Mondesi  wrote:
> Exactly for those reasons.
>
> What we probably would like to see is "update-service" which would wrap all 
> init services into one umbrella.
>
> update-service --list # shows all services and init running it: runit, 
> upstart, systemd, and sysv to start
> update-service   [service] # for trying to call "command" 
> for each of the services' init systems. Essentially, same as /sbin/service 
> does in Fedora/RHEL 7 which was missed in Debian/Ubuntu. The difference is 
> that this tool would also work in batch mode and also enable/disable services.
>

service command is available in both debian and ubuntu, and integrated
throughout to work with sysv, upstart and systemd...

> --
> Luis
>
>> On Aug 4, 2015, at 17:59, João M. S. Silva  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Moreover:
>>
>> $ update-rc.d modemmanager enable
>> update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/modemmanager: file does not exist
>>
>>
>>> On 08/04/2015 10:34 PM, Luis Mondesi wrote:
>>> I believe RHEL 7 does the right thing with chkconfig. It's simply an
>>> abstraction. Systemctl is fine, but that's probably overkill for simply
>>> turning things on or off.
>>>
>>> systemctl status foo
>>> systemctl disable foo
>>> systemctl stop foo
>>>
>>> As opposed to:
>>> chkconfig foo off
>>>
>>> My guess is that it should be relatively simple to write your own
>>> wrapper once you know what you're doing. However, to keep things simple
>>> for everybody else, it's better to have somebody who knows better
>>> actually write this wrapper for the rest of us. That way the
>>> documentation stays simple for all future init replacements. Makes the
>>> vendors happy as well as the end users.
>>>
>>> Just my 2 cents...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Luis
>>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2015, at 16:09, Martinx - ジェームズ
>>> mailto:thiagocmarti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
 Does chkconfig still works with systemd?


 On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, 16:59 João M. S. Silva
 mailto:joao.m.santos.si...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:

What do you mean?

Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?

On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
>> service administration.
>>
>> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
>> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
>> seems the case:
>>
>>

 http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
>>
>>

 http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
>>
>> etc.
>
> Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?
>

--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

 --
 Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
 Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
 
 Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>>
>> --
>> João M. S. Silva
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Luis Mondesi]

Exactly for those reasons. 

What we probably would like to see is "update-service" which would wrap all 
init services into one umbrella. 

update-service --list # shows all services and init running it: runit, upstart, 
systemd, and sysv to start
update-service   [service] # for trying to call "command" for 
each of the services' init systems. Essentially, same as /sbin/service does in 
Fedora/RHEL 7 which was missed in Debian/Ubuntu. The difference is that this 
tool would also work in batch mode and also enable/disable services. 

--
Luis

> On Aug 4, 2015, at 17:59, João M. S. Silva  
> wrote:
> 
> Moreover:
> 
> $ update-rc.d modemmanager enable
> update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/modemmanager: file does not exist
> 
> 
>> On 08/04/2015 10:34 PM, Luis Mondesi wrote:
>> I believe RHEL 7 does the right thing with chkconfig. It's simply an
>> abstraction. Systemctl is fine, but that's probably overkill for simply
>> turning things on or off.
>> 
>> systemctl status foo
>> systemctl disable foo
>> systemctl stop foo
>> 
>> As opposed to:
>> chkconfig foo off
>> 
>> My guess is that it should be relatively simple to write your own
>> wrapper once you know what you're doing. However, to keep things simple
>> for everybody else, it's better to have somebody who knows better
>> actually write this wrapper for the rest of us. That way the
>> documentation stays simple for all future init replacements. Makes the
>> vendors happy as well as the end users.
>> 
>> Just my 2 cents...
>> 
>> --
>> Luis
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2015, at 16:09, Martinx - ジェームズ
>> mailto:thiagocmarti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Does chkconfig still works with systemd?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, 16:59 João M. S. Silva
>>> mailto:joao.m.santos.si...@gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>What do you mean?
>>> 
>>>Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?
>>> 
>>>On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
>>>>> service administration.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
>>>>> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
>>>>> seems the case:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
>>>>>
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?
>>>>
>>> 
>>>--
>>>João M. S. Silva
>>> 
>>>--
>>>Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
>>>Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
>>>
>>>Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>>https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
>>> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
>>> 
>>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
> 
> -- 
> João M. S. Silva

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

Moreover:

$ update-rc.d modemmanager enable
update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/modemmanager: file does not exist


On 08/04/2015 10:34 PM, Luis Mondesi wrote:

I believe RHEL 7 does the right thing with chkconfig. It's simply an
abstraction. Systemctl is fine, but that's probably overkill for simply
turning things on or off.

systemctl status foo
systemctl disable foo
systemctl stop foo

As opposed to:
chkconfig foo off

My guess is that it should be relatively simple to write your own
wrapper once you know what you're doing. However, to keep things simple
for everybody else, it's better to have somebody who knows better
actually write this wrapper for the rest of us. That way the
documentation stays simple for all future init replacements. Makes the
vendors happy as well as the end users.

Just my 2 cents...

--
Luis

On Aug 4, 2015, at 16:09, Martinx - ジェームズ
mailto:thiagocmarti...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Does chkconfig still works with systemd?


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, 16:59 João M. S. Silva
mailto:joao.m.santos.si...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

What do you mean?

Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?

On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
>> service administration.
>>
>> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
>> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
>> seems the case:
>>
>>

http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
>>
>>
http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
>>
>> etc.
>
> Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?
>

--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss


--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

I would be happy with systemctl. For me, that would be fine. But, from 
what I'm just looking at, I can't use systemd yet (I'm on Ubuntu 14.04.2).


So I'm stuck with upstart.

The most adequate answer seems: 
http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services 
but even that doesn't convince me. Creating the .override file is clumsy 
and does not allow to enable a service.


Running the service from rc.local is very dirty and I guess wrong (when 
does it stop? when exactly does it start?).


Should I manually edit the /etc/init/modemmanager.conf file and remove 
its dependence on network-manager? That's a way, but also does not 
satisfy me 100 %.


I feel there should be a better way...

On 08/04/2015 10:34 PM, Luis Mondesi wrote:

I believe RHEL 7 does the right thing with chkconfig. It's simply an
abstraction. Systemctl is fine, but that's probably overkill for simply
turning things on or off.

systemctl status foo
systemctl disable foo
systemctl stop foo

As opposed to:
chkconfig foo off

My guess is that it should be relatively simple to write your own
wrapper once you know what you're doing. However, to keep things simple
for everybody else, it's better to have somebody who knows better
actually write this wrapper for the rest of us. That way the
documentation stays simple for all future init replacements. Makes the
vendors happy as well as the end users.

Just my 2 cents...

--
Luis

On Aug 4, 2015, at 16:09, Martinx - ジェームズ
mailto:thiagocmarti...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Does chkconfig still works with systemd?


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, 16:59 João M. S. Silva
mailto:joao.m.santos.si...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

What do you mean?

Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?

On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
>> service administration.
>>
>> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
>> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
>> seems the case:
>>
>>

http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
>>
>>
http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
>>
>> etc.
>
> Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?
>

--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss


--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Luis Mondesi]

I believe RHEL 7 does the right thing with chkconfig. It's simply an 
abstraction. Systemctl is fine, but that's probably overkill for simply turning 
things on or off. 

systemctl status foo
systemctl disable foo
systemctl stop foo

As opposed to:
chkconfig foo off

My guess is that it should be relatively simple to write your own wrapper once 
you know what you're doing. However, to keep things simple for everybody else, 
it's better to have somebody who knows better actually write this wrapper for 
the rest of us. That way the documentation stays simple for all future init 
replacements. Makes the vendors happy as well as the end users. 

Just my 2 cents...

--
Luis

> On Aug 4, 2015, at 16:09, Martinx - ジェームズ  wrote:
> 
> Does chkconfig still works with systemd?
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, 16:59 João M. S. Silva  
>> wrote:
>> What do you mean?
>> 
>> Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?
>> 
>> On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
>> >> service administration.
>> >>
>> >> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
>> >> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
>> >> seems the case:
>> >>
>> >> http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
>> >>
>> >> http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
>> >>
>> >> etc.
>> >
>> > Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?
>> >
>> 
>> --
>> João M. S. Silva
>> 
>> --
>> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
>> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
> -- 
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

I'm not sure, but systemd has systemctl for that purpose.

My server does not have systemctl. I don't think it has systemd.

In my opinion there should be a way to simply enable/disable services 
from the command line, especially for servers.


On 08/04/2015 09:09 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:

Does chkconfig still works with systemd?


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, 16:59 João M. S. Silva
mailto:joao.m.santos.si...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

What do you mean?

Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?

On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
 > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
 >> Hi,
 >>
 >> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
 >> service administration.
 >>
 >> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
 >> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
 >> seems the case:
 >>
 >>

http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
 >>
 >>
http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
 >>
 >> etc.
 >
 > Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?
 >

--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com

Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss



--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

Does chkconfig still works with systemd?

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, 16:59 João M. S. Silva 
wrote:

> What do you mean?
>
> Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?
>
> On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
> >> service administration.
> >>
> >> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
> >> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
> >> seems the case:
> >>
> >>
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
> >>
> >>
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
> >>
> >> etc.
> >
> > Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?
> >
>
> --
> João M. S. Silva
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[João M . S . Silva]

What do you mean?

Installing chkconfig in Ubuntu?

On 08/04/2015 08:51 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:

Hi,

I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
service administration.

It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
seems the case:

http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu

http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1

etc.


Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?



--
João M. S. Silva

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: equivalent of chkconfig

[Bob Holtzman]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:38:03PM +0100, João M. S. Silva wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I suggest an equivalent of Fedora's chkconfig for server startup
> service administration.
> 
> It seems strange that a simple solution for this problem does not
> already exist, but from all the questions that I've checked, that
> seems the case:
> 
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/656496/how-to-enable-disable-startup-services-in-ubuntu
> 
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/19320/how-to-enable-or-disable-services?lq=1
> 
> etc.

Something wrong with downloading/installing it from a repo?

-- 

Bob Holtzman
A fair fight is the result of poor planning.


-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss