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