On Tue, 12.01.16 19:48, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > > > Am 12.01.2016 um 19:44 schrieb Lennart Poettering: > >On Tue, 12.01.16 19:37, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > > > >>>That said, of course, this is not obvious at first, hence since quite > >>>some time "systemctl stop" will actually explain this to you: if you > >>>stop a daemon, but leave its socket running, then you'll get a > >>>friendly message telling you about this, and suggesting you the right > >>>command line to terminate the socket too. > >> > >>as soon as you are able to print out such a "friendly message" you are also > >>able to imply it automatically > > > >Well, sure, but that's something we don't want to do, as people should > >be able to stop units and their triggering units separately and > >individually. > > > >I'd be willing to take a patch that adds a new job mode though, that > >recursively includes stop/start jobs for all triggering > >units. i.e. "systemctl --job-mode=triggering foo.service" or so. That > >would certainly be a useful enhancement, but should not be the > >default. > > IT SHOULD be the default
Well, no. And spelling this out in caps won't help. This is nothing we can just change, even if we'd want to. It's exposed stable behaviour. Sorry, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
