New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Suggest in docs and daemon messages how command-signals vs. PID files vs. systemd units interact #1724
Suggest in docs and daemon messages how command-signals vs. PID files vs. systemd units interact #1724
Conversation
3d55373
to
d692c66
Compare
For builds with systemd:
For builds on other systems:
While not a 100% exact science (we might delve into detailing different return codes from the |
dbe5e39
to
1a416f0
Compare
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Getting closer to "some % exact science" -- by refactoring the code for detection and reporting of probe/signal outcomes into one block:
As can be seen in
|
…ing/reporting codebase [networkupstools#1721]
11a2aaf
to
ad5cc16
Compare
…ndling/reporting codebase [networkupstools#1721]
✅ Build nut 2.8.0.198-master completed (commit 447ade2ae2 by @jimklimov) |
See some more testing of commands vs. starts with and without a competing daemon in #1728 research trail. |
Follow-up from #1721 discussions, mostly to clarify docs and messages to be more actionable with regard to changes in NUT 2.8.0 and systemd unit wrapping (e.g. that by default it starts
upsd -F
and so does not save PID files).Also clarifies some example texts to be more consistent between files (e.g. NUT user for upsmon).