On Wed, 24.11.10 13:59, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com) wrote:
2010/11/24 Tomasz Torcz <tomek(a)pipebreaker.pl>:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:41:49PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> 2010/11/24 Lennart Poettering <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de>:
>> > On Sun, 21.11.10 00:46, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp4x4(a)gmail.com) wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I would like to help with scripts conversion. IMO the conversion
>> >> action should be coordinated.
>> >> Comments, thoughts?
>> > I would certainly welcome any work in this direction!
>> Could you look at the
>> crond.service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656864
>> atd.service https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656869
>> and see if I did not do any fundamental error?
>> Seems to me that these are simple enough at the beginning :)
>> For both I used Type=forking - it works fine, but it seems to me that
>> Type=simple might be a better choice.
> For type=simple you would like "-n" switch in crond invocation.
Ah, ok, I'll keep forking.
It's generally nicer to use "simple" wherever possible, unless you have
a really good reason to assume that your service might be needed to be
up by something else, and that something else might want synchronize to
it. Since at/cron don't really offer any live protocols to other
processes I think Type=simple is a good idea here.
BTW, regarding at and cron: what I was thinking of but never check
ehwther it is feasible is to make cron/at autostart a soon as some job
is scheduled. I.e. use .path trigger to check whether /etc/crontab and
user jobs exist, and start cron only then. Similarly for at. That way we
could support cron and at just fine, and wouldn't even have to run it by
default. I haven't looked into this in detail however, to see if the
file triggers systemd offers in .path units are already sufficient to
make this work.
(And /etc/cron.daily and stuff would then be managed by systemd
natively, in a .timer unit)
> I suggest trimming Description, it is printed during bootup and
should be short.
I didn't noticed it - I guess "quiet" kernel param is also interpreted
Yes, systemd honours "quiet":
Btw, it's written "systemd", not "SystemD". I even added a section
the spelling now to the systemd homepage ;-)
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.