[systemd-devel] [PATCH] systemctl: introduce --now for enable, disable and mask

[Cam Hutchison]

jsynacek at redhat.com writes:

>diff --git a/man/systemctl.xml b/man/systemctl.xml
>index 4dbdfe1..951ce4d 100644
>--- a/man/systemctl.xml
>+++ b/man/systemctl.xml
>@@ -456,6 +456,17 @@
>       </varlistentry>
> 
>       <varlistentry>
>+        <term><option>--now</option></term>
>+
>+        <listitem>
>+          <para>When used with <command>enable</command>, the units
>+          will also be started. When used with <command>disable</command>
>+          or <command>mask</command>, the units will additionally be

Just a small nit: s/additionally/also/. You used the word "also" in the
previous sentence, and when I see different language being used in
different places in documentation, I wonder whether there is something
different about the cases.

>+          stopped.</para>

Could you elaborate on ordering here? Is the unit first enabled then started,
and first stopped then disabled? Some other order? Indeterminate?

>+        </listitem>
>+      </varlistentry>
>+
>+      <varlistentry>
>         <term><option>--root=</option></term>
> 
>         <listitem>
>@@ -921,11 +932,12 @@ kobject-uevent 1 systemd-udevd-kernel.socket systemd-udevd.service
>             the changes are taken into account immediately. Note that
>             this does <emphasis>not</emphasis> have the effect of also
>             starting any of the units being enabled. If this
>-            is desired, a separate <command>start</command> command must
>-            be invoked for the unit. Also note that in case of instance
>-            enablement, symlinks named the same as instances are created in
>-            the install location, however they all point to the same
>-            template unit file.</para>
>+            is desired, either <option>--now</option> should be used
>+            together with this command, or a separate <command>start</command>

Similar to my nit above - this uses "separate", the disable paragraph uses
"additional". (I realise this is pre-existing language, but while you're here
it can be fixed).

>+            command must be invoked for the unit. Also note that in case of
>+            instance enablement, symlinks named the same as instances
>+            are created in the install location, however they all point to the
>+            same template unit file.</para>
> 
>             <para>This command will print the actions executed. This
>             output may be suppressed by passing <option>--quiet</option>.
>@@ -980,9 +992,10 @@ kobject-uevent 1 systemd-udevd-kernel.socket systemd-udevd.service
>             <command>enable</command>. This call implicitly reloads the
>             systemd daemon configuration after completing the disabling
>             of the units. Note that this command does not implicitly
>-            stop the units that are being disabled. If this is desired,
>-            an additional <command>stop</command> command should be
>-            executed afterwards.</para>
>+            stop the units that are being disabled. If this is desired, either
>+            <option>--now</option> should be used together with this command, or
>+            an additional <command>stop</command> command should be executed

"additional" used here. See previous comment.

>+            afterwards.</para>
> 
>             <para>This command will print the actions executed. This
>             output may be suppressed by passing <option>--quiet</option>.
>@@ -1128,7 +1141,9 @@ kobject-uevent 1 systemd-udevd-kernel.socket systemd-udevd.service
>             activation of the unit, including enablement and manual
>             activation. Use this option with care. This honors the
>             <option>--runtime</option> option to only mask temporarily
>-            until the next reboot of the system.</para>
>+            until the next reboot of the system. The <option>--now</option>
>+            can be additionally used to ensure that the units are also
>+            stopped.</para>

Drop the word "additionally" since there is an "also" later in the sentence
(and options by their nature are additional).

>           </listitem>
>         </varlistentry>