Skip to content

Revert "systemctl: return EXIT_SUCCESS on success"#1845

Merged
teg merged 1 commit intosystemd:masterfrom
poettering:revert-EXIT_SUCCESS
Nov 11, 2015
Merged

Revert "systemctl: return EXIT_SUCCESS on success"#1845
teg merged 1 commit intosystemd:masterfrom
poettering:revert-EXIT_SUCCESS

Conversation

@poettering
Copy link
Member

This reverts commit 6a32563.

Make sure we continue to return LSB compatible exit codes.

@teg @evverx please have a look

@teg
Copy link
Contributor

teg commented Nov 11, 2015

Yikes. Good point. Probably should be a comment there as this is non-standard (or maybe there was one I didn't see).

teg added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2015
Revert "systemctl: return EXIT_SUCCESS on success"
@teg teg merged commit 919ae53 into systemd:master Nov 11, 2015
@martinpitt
Copy link
Contributor

My daily integration tests were yelling at me, and confirming that this fixes stuff again. Thanks! 👍

@evverx
Copy link
Contributor

evverx commented Nov 11, 2015

oh, sorry.

hm, systemctl list-jobs always exits with 1.
It breaks my tests.

My daily integration tests were yelling at me

@martinpitt , where can I find these tests?

I mean, I changed a systemctl, run sudo make check, cd test; sudo make check. All tests passed. It's bad.

poettering added a commit to poettering/systemd that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2015
@martinpitt
Copy link
Contributor

@evverx : They are in http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/tests . They are downstream integration tests using the built packages, so running them in an upstream context is not entirely straightforward. One test that failled on this was http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/tree/debian/tests/unit-config , this should actually work reasonably well by just directly calling it in a VM.

@evverx
Copy link
Contributor

evverx commented Nov 11, 2015

@martinpitt , thanks. I'll debcheckout it.

running them in an upstream context is not entirely straightforward

oh, I know.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants