Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 03:51:11PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > I'm not saying that systemctl's syntax needs to be changed. I am saying, > > however, that it's important to get the service command working with > > systemctl so that people can use that instead. > FYI, this is done in git, will

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said: > I'm not saying that systemctl's syntax needs to be changed. I am saying, > however, that it's important to get the service command working with > systemctl so that people can use that instead. FYI, this is done in git, will be built today/tomorrow. Bill

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 08:41:52AM -0500, David Smith wrote: > > I'm still trying to work out how to get systemctl to boot > > my netbook into run level 5. The usual way of changing this > > seems to have no effect and that is a problem. RFE to make it a feature of systemctl:

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On 08/25/2010 01:39 AM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm still trying to work out how to get systemctl to boot > my netbook into run level 5. The usual way of changing this > seems to have no effect and that is a problem. There's a new question/answer just added to the systemd FAQ that explains t

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 08/24/2010 03:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: >> >>> The service command has a syntax like this: >>> >>>  service servicename action >>> >>> where as systemctl has

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On 08/24/2010 01:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > >> The service command has a syntax like this: >> >> service servicename action >> >> where as systemctl has a syntax like this: >> >> systemctl action servicename.service >>

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 16:45:49 -0500, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > > I'm of two minds here. On the one hand it would be nice to preserve the > long-standing syntax convention for the reason Matt described. But on > the other hand, putting the verb before the object seems to mesh well > wit

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

Matthew Miller wrote: > The service command has a syntax like this: > > service servicename action > > where as systemctl has a syntax like this: > > systemctl action servicename.service > > This is inconvienient for the common case where more than one action is > performed in sequence on the

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On 08/24/2010 03:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > >> The service command has a syntax like this: >> >> service servicename action >> >> where as systemctl has a syntax like this: >> >> systemctl action servicename.service >> >

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:53:48PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Interesting definition of "important". I said this before. User interfaces are important, even if they are command line user interfaces. I use this program very, very often. All Red-Hat-universe sysadmins do. To you, it may be a

Re: a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote: > The service command has a syntax like this: > > service servicename action > > where as systemctl has a syntax like this: > > systemctl action servicename.service > > This is inconvienient for the common case where more than

a note on order of arguements to systemctl command

The service command has a syntax like this: service servicename action where as systemctl has a syntax like this: systemctl action servicename.service This is inconvienient for the common case where more than one action is performed in sequence on the same service, since with the first orderi