[systemd-devel] proper way for shutdown script

[Xen]

Kai Krakow schreef op 07-10-2016 9:40:
> Am Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:40:52 +0200
> schrieb Xen <list at xenhideout.nl>:
> 
>> Xen schreef op 05-10-2016 14:37:
>> 
>> > And this works. But now the service must be started first before it
>> > will be called on shutdown... :-/.
>> 
>> I guess the package installer would have to start the service after
>> installation which would be a solution in that sense, it needs to
>> enable the service anyway.
>> 
>> Also I don't understand why /etc/init.d/libnss-ldap masks
>> /etc/systemd/system/libnss-ldap.service for the enable call.
>> 
>> It will see the init script and then call the sysv thing and will
>> never get to the actual service file I have created?
>> 
>> Thanks for your help.
> 
> You could make a path unit that watches for changes to the
> configuration file and then runs the script.

Thanks. But I take it you mean to wait for changes to /etc/ldap.conf, 
however the changes need to be re-run not after changing ldap.conf, but 
after adding new system users to the system.

Any case I don't know if anyone is still going to be interested in 
fixing the issue of that package.

Whenever you offer assistance it is usually taken as a reason to 
criticize the help offered for not being entirely perfect. And you don't 
get cooperative criticism (from someone also interested in seeing the 
thing through) but rebutive criticism (from someone apparently invested 
in not seeing the thing through).

Although these were not original-maintainers but it still feels they 
treat it as a competition. And they come up with reasons as to why other 
patches in the past have been better than yours. Or why what you suggest 
is not up-to-par. When they already know how to bring it up-to-par. But 
instead of simply doing that or suggesting that as a way to get the 
thing accepted, they bring it up as a reason to reject the thing. The 
same energy expended to say what's wrong could have been expended as a 
way to make it right.

But apparently that would mean that you "win" and apparently that would 
imply that they "lose"? How offering assistence can be a form of 
competition is beyond me, but apparently that is the way it is. Because 
any statement of what could be improved is a statement of what can be 
improved is a statement of what could be wrong.

And any statement of what could be wrong could be a slap in the face of 
those who have created the thing, if put wrongly or worded differently. 
No one wants to be told that what they've created is not okay, but 
offering improvements can hardly be done without it. Any improvement is 
a statement of the inferiority of the previous thing, if put in the 
wrong light.

Anyway, too much information and maybe not relevant to the thing at 
hand. Just an observation as to how some things sometimes go. Apologies.