From ArchWiki
Revision as of 12:42, 18 November 2012 by DarioP (talk | contribs) (Should the section "writing a custom .service" be expanded?)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should the section "writing a custom .service" be expanded?

I think so.. as long as I got, this is necessary to run self-made scripts during the boot process, but this is not clear and the structure of the files is not well presented.

--DarioP (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Display manager fails to load with fast SSD

I was having a problem with my display manager (LXDM) not loading on my laptop, which has a Sandisk Extreme SSD. Xorg.log would show errors like "No screens found."

I eventually figured out that the problem was that my computer was booting so fast that KMS didn't have enough time to kick in before X was started. I solved by adding the KMS driver (i915 in my case) to the initramfs.

Just a tip for SSD users, not sure if it should be added to the page or not.
--Steev (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a general problem that needs to be solved in the display manager. GDM already implements the bits for the CanGraphical flag.
-- Falconindy (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hibernation with systemd

The hibernation section should be considered a hack since systemd does not directly handle the backend that handles power management. Systemd uses the Upower interface to handle such requests
-- Yungtrizzle (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2012‎

I talked about hibernation process with Lennart Poettering and he said that systemd-hibernate does only "echo disk > /sys/power/state" . As far as i can see, it works perfectly with tuxonice, since it seems it is now using the same userspace API as kernel hibernation; so it works even without hibernate-script installed (i use it without that package).
-- Nierro (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2012
what is the #Hibernation section all about anyway? It makes it sound like you need to use uswsusp to hibernate while it should work out of the box just fine. It doesn't explain at all why you would want to use uswsusp instead of the default command. I don't use hibernate nor do I know what uswsusp actually does, so what am I missing here?
-- 65kid (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with 65kid. In fact, systemctl hibernate works out of the box (it only does an "echo disk...", nothing else). We don't need uswsusp at all. I tried with stock arch kernel and it works.
-- Nierro (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2012
Then I suggest that - unless someone explains why you would want to use uswsusp - we remove this whole section because it is nothing but confusing. This article is already way too big to waste text on something that doesn't seem to make any sense.
-- 65kid (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the irrelevant information from the page, moving it to Uswsusp. I also added a note pointing readers there if they want to use another backend for suspending or hibernating.
-- Ifaigios (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey Nierro, do systemctl hibernate and systemctl suspend really do different things on your box? In my setup (linux-pf, systemd 195-2), if I do the latter, my box is also in suspend mode, meaning that my power button is glowing on and off and I don't see grub after pressing the power button again but are back to my desktop almost immediately. To me, it rather seems as if systemctl hibernate goes into hybrid mode?
-- jakobh 10:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Got an answer to the question on the systemd mailing list now: Link
-- jakobh 17:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

GNOME 3.6 issues inhibited commands

It seems that GNOME 3.6 now issues the necessary "inhibited" commands, at my system now doesn't suspend twice with the standard configuration anymore. However I'm not familiar enough with the whole concept to be absolutely sure, so I won't update the page itself. Maybe someone with more competence regarding the inhibited commands can confirm this and edit the page?
-- Johnpatcher (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Inhibited note is added. Close. -- Fengchao (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we add a note about CUPS under 'Transitioning from initscripts to systemd'?

Are there any more sockets that change?

Copied from the CUPS wiki:


Systemd uses a different CUPS socket file located at:


The default CUPS socket file is located at:


Edit /etc/cups/cupsd.conf and /etc/cups/client.conf as root to use the systemd socket instead of the default. Make sure to restart CUPS when you are done:

# systemctl restart cups

-- JKAbrams 5 November 2012

This sounds more like a cups packaging bug that should just be fixed.
-- Jstjohn (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like someone who doesn't have a clue about systemd. That cups.socket file is a systemd unit file of type socket, which contains the location of the socket file for CUPS (and that is still /var/run/cups/cups.sock).
Raynman (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)