On Thu, 14.08.14 21:16, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: > > В Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:24:49 +0200 > Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> пишет: > > > On Sun, 27.07.14 20:04, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > > > > > but that still don't explain why "ExecStopPost=/sur/bin/true" or > > > whatever "ExecStopPost" solves that and if it is not supported > > > why "systemctl" don't return after the one and only process > > > exited > > > > Well, this is a misunderstanding how ExecStop= and friends are supposed > > to work. They are supposed to do what they did on sysvinit: > > synchronously terminate a service. And not asynchronously do that. > > I have to ask again - why is forcing every package to re-implement busy > loop waiting for process to exit better than doing this wait in one > place - PID 1 - which is the most natural place to do it?
Which is what we do. Except when you specify ExecStop= which basically tells systemd that you want to do it instead. So there you go! Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel