On 08/24/2010 01:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 24.08.10 14:59, Matthew Miller (mattdm(a)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 one action is
> performed in sequence on the same service, since with the first ordering,
> one just hits the up arrow, ctrl-w, and then types the new action (with
> tab-completion).
>
> With the systemctl order, one must first skip back over the first word,
> which due to the awesome emacsness of bash keybindings is more of a pain.
>
> 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.
Interesting definition of "important".
The semantics of a command you may execute dozens of times a day
depending on your work environment is "important", especially when it is
(nearly) functionally equivalent to one you used to use but is now
somewhat different. I agree with Matt here, why make it different?
BTW, there's a systemd-devel mailing list. Must of the stuff
discussed
here should probably discussed there instead.
Lennart
I disagree. This is where systemd is getting presented to the world,
this is where it will receive the broadest exposure.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301
http://www.cora.nwra.com