On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 9:30 AM Windl, Ulrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrei Borzenkov <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 4:12 PM > > To: Windl, Ulrich <[email protected]> > > Cc: Mantas Mikulėnas <[email protected]>; systemd- > > [email protected] > > Subject: [EXT] Re: Re: [systemd-devel] "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing" > > issue > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:25 AM Windl, Ulrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Andrei Borzenkov <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 1:19 PM > > > > To: Mantas Mikulėnas <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Windl, Ulrich <[email protected]>; systemd- > > [email protected] > > > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [systemd-devel] "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing" > > issue > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:12 PM Mantas Mikulėnas <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Furthermore it seems to be necessary to run the service unit itself, > > too > > > > (assuming it must be enabled also, right?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. The purpose of the timer is to start the service, so starting the > > service > > > > manually (or "enabling" it, to be started on boot) would be redundant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > OnUnitInactiveSec begins counting when service gets stopped. How is > > > > this timer supposed to start a service that was never active (and > > > > hence never stopped) before? > > > [Windl, Ulrich] > > > > > > OK, so what would you suggest instead? > > > > Did you even try to read my reply to *your* original post? > [Windl, Ulrich] > > You wrote "... starting the service manually (or "enabling" it, to be started > on boot) would be redundant.",
No, I did not write it.
