On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 08:13:45 -0400 Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Everything was always broken
I'm pretty sure everything was always broken. I never had the combination of postfix, dovecot, and stunnel operational more than about 10% of the time with pure systemd.
I just took a more practical approach and made an rc.local script that restarted services I found not always coming up right after a short delay. This sort of thing:
/bin/bash -c 'sleep 5 ; service stunnel restart' > /dev/null 2>&1 < /dev/null & /bin/bash -c 'sleep 7 ; service postfix restart' > /dev/null 2>&1 < /dev/null &
That at least works up to the day systemd decides no one needs rc.local and they drop support for it (a day that is sure to come :-).
Direct support for rc.local has already been "deprecated". Somewhere I read something from Lennart and it was clear that he has an almost religious hatred for doing things 'the old way', so much so that rc.local is not 'desired'.
And since systemd wants to run everything as the final user, there are all lots of problems now in creating folders etc which were easy to do before and difficult now, which some lines in rc.local can easily avoid. But not easy to set up.
I've been playing with using @reboot in a cron script. Using @reboot is effectively a run-once trigger for cron. I am still not sure exactly when in the boot sequence the @reboot is triggered. Hopefully after the network is up! ( The @reboot gem learnt from that dangerous extremist publication Linux Journal!)
Geoff
R. G. Newbury writes:
That at least works up to the day systemd decides no one needs rc.local and they drop support for it (a day that is sure to come :-).
Direct support for rc.local has already been "deprecated". Somewhere I read something from Lennart and it was clear that he has an almost religious hatred for doing things 'the old way', so much so that rc.local is not 'desired'.
I got the same impression. If it worked, reliably, for decades, it's not desired any more.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:30:06 -0400 Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
R. G. Newbury writes:
That at least works up to the day systemd decides no one needs rc.local and they drop support for it (a day that is sure to come :-).
Direct support for rc.local has already been "deprecated". Somewhere I read something from Lennart and it was clear that he has an almost religious hatred for doing things 'the old way', so much so that rc.local is not 'desired'.
I got the same impression. If it worked, reliably, for decades, it's not desired any more.
I'd love a cite if you can find one... I don't know of any reason it would ever be removed. It doesn't run or do anything if you don't have an rc.local file.
kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/14 07:32, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:30:06 -0400 Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
R. G. Newbury writes:
That at least works up to the day systemd decides no one needs rc.local and they drop support for it (a day that is sure to come :-).
Direct support for rc.local has already been "deprecated". Somewhere I read something from Lennart and it was clear that he has an almost religious hatred for doing things 'the old way', so much so that rc.local is not 'desired'.
I got the same impression. If it worked, reliably, for decades, it's not desired any more.
I'd love a cite if you can find one... I don't know of any reason it would ever be removed. It doesn't run or do anything if you don't have an rc.local file.
Sometimes I think some folks may not be reading the documentation on this. rc.local also needs to be executable for it to work.
I'm forced to use this currently due to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055139 to mount some NFS filesystems. Works fine.
- -- If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige.
Kevin Fenzi writes:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:30:06 -0400 Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
R. G. Newbury writes:
That at least works up to the day systemd decides no one needs rc.local and they drop support for it (a day that is sure to come :-).
Direct support for rc.local has already been "deprecated". Somewhere I read something from Lennart and it was clear that he has an almost religious hatred for doing things 'the old way', so much so that rc.local is not 'desired'.
I got the same impression. If it worked, reliably, for decades, it's not desired any more.
I'd love a cite if you can find one... I don't know of any reason it would ever be removed. It doesn't run or do anything if you don't have an rc.local file.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 20:17:53 -0400 Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Kevin Fenzi writes:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:30:06 -0400 Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
R. G. Newbury writes:
That at least works up to the day systemd decides no one needs rc.local and they drop support for it (a day that is sure to come :-).
Direct support for rc.local has already been "deprecated". Somewhere I read something from Lennart and it was clear that he has an almost religious hatred for doing things 'the old way', so much so that rc.local is not 'desired'.
I got the same impression. If it worked, reliably, for decades, it's not desired any more.
I'd love a cite if you can find one... I don't know of any reason it would ever be removed. It doesn't run or do anything if you don't have an rc.local file.
Thanks.
There's no indication there that they intend to ever remove the compatibility there that I can see. Sure, it's depreciated, but should be there for compatibility.
kevin
-
Ed Greshko -
Kevin Fenzi -
R. G. Newbury -
Sam Varshavchik