Comment by shawnz
1 year ago
I would argue the semantics of ExecStop are always the same. It's the command that's executed to stop the service. On the other hand, what it means for a service to be "running" or "stopping" naturally depends on what type of service it is (i.e., is it a daemon or not?)
> the command that's executed to stop the service
That’s what is assumed. But in reality it runs after the started process stops.
Yes, so whether the service is stopping as a result of the process exiting, or whether you requested the service to stop manually, it will run the ExecStop in either case.
That makes sense to me personally. What would be the more intuitive design in your mind?
Stopping as a result of the process exiting or requested the service to stop are two very different things. Systemd overloads the term ExecStop for different semantics, relying on different property settings. That's where the confusion comes from.
The name sounds like it means "this is how I want you to cause the service to stop" to me (and clearly to others as well). That would be symmetrical with ExecStart meaning "this is how I want you to cause the service to start". If it runs after the service stopped it should be called "ExecAfterStop" or something like that.
2 replies →