[lfs-dev] Systemd - KillUserProcesses=yes (Was: Re: [blfs-dev] Two hints about building firefox-47.0.1 and using screen with systemd-230)

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Aug 2 11:24:32 PDT 2016

On August 2, 2016 11:43:13 AM CDT, Tim Tassonis <stuff at decentral.ch> wrote:
>On 08/02/16 04:53, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> On 07/31/2016 01:06 PM, Tim Tassonis wrote:
>>> On 07/31/16 17:48, DJ Lucas wrote:
>>>> On July 30, 2016 8:55:40 PM CDT, "Douglas R. Reno"
>>>> <renodr at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'll make the change to /etc/systemd/logind.conf with the update
>>>>> systemd-231 that I am working on.
>>>> Let's not do that by default. Rather, put text containing an
>>>> explanation, and the command with a nodump attribute in LFS, and
>add a
>>>> note in BLFS on the screen page (only real consumer we have).
>>> As far as I understand, also nohup from coreutils is concerned.
>> Michael and Tim BCC'd (not sure if you are sub'd to LFS-Dev).
>> So I wanted to give this a bit more of a fair shake than simply not
>> going against upstream. I spent more than a few hours sorting through
>> systemd sucks/rules flame fests to find the occasional intelligent
>> argument for or against the 230 change in default.
>> I haven't changed my request to leave it at default. In short, the
>> default is now a restrictive model vs. the previous permissive. The
>> written arguments both for, and against, are all essentially the
>> To paraphrase: It fixed (or broke) 30 some-odd years of
>> nohup/daemon()/setsid() being virtually unrestricted.
>> So there are four different ways to turn it off in various contexts.
>> Compile time (break/fix semi-permanently), config file (break/fix
>> temporarily), user session (loginctl enable-linger [user] (break/fix
>> one user)), or at runtime via systemd-run. The systemd-run
>> was added as the replacement method to corral the former free for
>> This essentially leaves it up to the user or system admin rather than
>> allowing random binaries to run forever.
>> As Tim mentioned, nohup is broken (by design) when enabled (the
>> default). Other threads have suggested removing nohup and/or
>> nohup->systemd-run, but I also don't think we should go so far as to
>> disable installation of nohup (it still works when the new
>> is disabled using three of the methods above).
>> https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/loginctl.html
>> https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-run.html
>> Instead, I'd like to see another sect2 added to 7.10 discussing the
>> functionality, meeting the official primary goal of LFS. I'll be
>> to write it if agreed upon.
>> Thoughts?
>My thought is that generally disabling installation of nohup would be a
>bad choice, as there might be some users (apart from me) that choose
>non-systemd approach for LFS and frequently like to use nohup, e.g. for
>long-running compiles on machines connected with ssh, allowing to 
>disconnect and re-connect in the meantime.
>If however the long-term goal of lfs is to only support systemd, then 
>the removal/symlinking would make sense. Else, there might be a section
>in coreutils that makes this optional for systemd users.

No removal. I was more concerned with whether the default behavior being explained and showing examples of the available replacements was sufficient for the systemd book. As you can see from Bruce's reply, no systemd is a preference for many LFS users. :-)


Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list