[12:17] <keesj> hmm I make some progress in the bug I am hunting. I an now reproduces it
[12:18] <keesj> I have 3 jobs files (2 service and one "state" ) http://www.paste-it.net/raw/public/g3fbeff/ called test_state_exportfs test_service_exportfs and test_service_userfs
[12:18] <keesj> the exportfs "service" gets stated before the stop of the userfs
[12:19] <keesj> when I run a start test_state_exportfs
[12:20] <keesj> this is because my userfs is defined to stop on test_state_exportfs AND stop on test_service_exportfs
[12:22] <keesj> when I issue a start test_state_exportfs the "userfs" is going in a stopping state and upstart does not wait for it to be stopped before it starts the exportfs service
[12:23] <keesj> http://www.paste-it.net/public/ve5305c/ shows that (ouput of initctl events) you see that topped test_service_userfs ok
[12:23] <keesj> is printed after started test_service_exportfs
[14:21] <Keybuk> keesj: I'll look presently
[15:01] <keesj> Do you understand what I am trying to explain?
[15:04] <keesj> it looks like because the "state" service already puts the userfs service in a "stopping mode" that a check upon start of the exportfs service it does not wait for the userfs service because that one is not "running"
[15:16] <Keybuk> I haven't read it yet
[17:16] <Keybuk> ok
[17:16] <Keybuk> reading now
[17:17] <Keybuk> test_service_exportfs - this will start before test_state_exportfs
[17:17] <Keybuk> test_service_userfs - this will stop before either test_state_exportfs or test_service_exportfs
[17:18] <Keybuk> you run
[17:18] <Keybuk> start test_state_exportfs
[17:18] <Keybuk> I would expect to see test_service_exportfs starting->running followed by test_state_exportfs starting->running
[17:19] <Keybuk> that appears to me to be what your events output shows?
[17:26] <Keybuk> http://rafb.net/p/HxXtYN53.html
[17:26] <Keybuk> WFM
[17:26] <Keybuk> I started test_service_userfs
[17:26] <Keybuk> then started test_state_exportfs
[17:27] <Keybuk> that stopped userfs, started service_exportfs, and then concluded starting state_exportfs
[17:29] <notting> sadmac2: built it for f9/f10. didn't add anything in bodhi for it
[17:29] <sadmac2> notting: ok
[17:30] <notting> sadmac2: there's a -21 because i didn't add a changelog the first time
[17:30] <sadmac2> notting: yeah, I forgot that bit :)
[17:31] <sadmac2> notting: If you want to test em a bit you can. Other than "does telinit u cause explosions" theres nothing to look for
[17:37] <Keybuk> keesj: I think you're just getting confused because you're looking at the order of resulting evefnts
[17:37] <Keybuk> keesj: upstart tends to focus on one service at a time, so it's not unusual to see events in what might appear to be out-of-order
[17:37] <Keybuk> keesj: use initctl jobs for debugging instead
[18:26] <plundra> I know there is inictl restart in 0.5, but is there a 'restart' aswell? Just as 'start' etc. that is.
[18:26] <plundra> In that case, can you 'restart job1 job2 job3' (just as you can start multiple ones)
[18:27] <plundra> If so, that's fucking awesome :-] Man I hate Ubuntu 8.04 uses 0.3.9
[19:39] <Keybuk> plundra: there is if you make a symlink to it
[19:40] <Keybuk> it was added sufficiently late that the symlink isn't there by default, but it probably should be
[20:33] <keesj> re
[20:34] <keesj> Keybuk it really happens that the userfs service is not stopped(still stopping) while the export service is started
[20:37] <keesj> in you paste line 12 the export service is starting and line 13 only hte userfs is stopped
[20:40] <keesj> and only in line 19 the service is stopped 
[20:41] <keesj> while at that point the service exportfs clearly looks like running
[20:54] <keesj> I will have more time tomotow , I will test on 0.5
[20:55] <Keybuk> keesj: I don't understand what you're trying to tell me
[20:55] <Keybuk> in my paste, I start test_state_exportfs
[20:56] <Keybuk> it *clearly* waits for test_service_userfs to stop *and* for test_service_exportfs to start
[20:56] <keesj> indeed but not for userfs to stop before is starts exportfs
[20:56] <Keybuk> yes, it clearly does
[20:57] <Keybuk> line 19, test_service_userfs (stop) waiting
[20:57] <Keybuk> userfs has fully stopped
[20:57] <Keybuk> line 20, test_state_exportfs (start) pre-start, process 10490
[20:57] <Keybuk> exportfs actually begins to start
[20:58] <Keybuk> this is working as intended
[20:58] <Keybuk> how are you expecting it to work?
[20:59] <keesj> I expect service_userfs to be fully stopped before service_exportfs starts
[20:59] <Keybuk> that's exactly what's happening
[20:59] <Keybuk> I don't understand your confusion
[21:00] <Keybuk> line 19, service_userfs is *fully* stopped
[21:00] <Keybuk> line 20, state_exportfs starts
[21:00] <Keybuk> there's nothing in your job to cause service_userfs to wait on service_exportfs?
[21:01] <Keybuk> the "stop on starting test_state_exportfs" is the key one
[21:02] <Keybuk> ah
[21:02] <Keybuk> do you think that having two "stop on" means "and" ?
[21:02] <Keybuk> (it doesn't - it means or)
[21:02] <Keybuk> you would need to use 0.5 for the behaviour you want
[21:02] <Keybuk> *and* your clause is wrong anyway if you want service_exportfs fully started
[21:03] <Keybuk> stop on starting test_state_exportfs and started test_service_exportfs
[21:05] <keesj> what I want is that when i start state_exportfs is  FIRST userfs gets fully stopped and after that only the service_exportfs get started starts. 
[21:05] <keesj> that is why i added the second stop on starting exportfs
[21:05] <Keybuk> then service_exportfs needs "stopped userfs"
[21:06] <keesj> right
[21:06] <Keybuk> start on starting test_state_exportfs and stopped test_service_userfs
[21:06] <Keybuk> 0.5 only
[21:07] <keesj> but 0.5 can only have one start line right?
[21:07] <Keybuk> right
[21:08] <sadmac2> Keybuk: I am about to head out, but have you looked at my crude little state machine lately?
[21:08] <sadmac2> is the implementation helping any?
[21:08] <Keybuk> sadmac2: no, haven't looked at all
[21:08] <sadmac2> (I'm going to write a manpage/user document after I get a little more into it)
[21:08] <sadmac2> ah
[21:08] <sadmac2> well there's enough there now to be worthwhile
[21:09] <Keybuk> keesj: only 0.5 has "and" behaviour
[21:09] <Keybuk> in 0.3 everything is "or"
[21:09] <Keybuk> and "or" doesn't give you what you want
[21:12] <keesj> well or is fine for me but apparently at the moment upstart starts the service_userfs it does not stop service_userfs. because (and I am guessing) the service_userfs is in "not started" mode.
[21:15] <keesj> off to bed now
[21:15] <Keybuk> no
[21:15] <Keybuk> nothing to do with that
[21:15] <Keybuk> it doesn't wait because nothing tells it to
[21:16] <Keybuk> you don't have any instruction for upstart to wait
[21:16] <Keybuk> it won't wait because you haven't told it to
[21:16] <Keybuk> it doesn't know what you're thinking ;)
[23:26] <plundra> Keybuk: Ok, sweet :-)
[23:26] <plundra> Too bad not even the upcoming Ubuntu 9.04 or Debian experimental has 0.5 yet (!)
[23:27] <Keybuk> plundra: I'm not particularly planning to put 0.5 into Ubuntu
[23:28] <plundra> Keybuk: Bleh, why not? :-)
[23:28] <plundra> restart would pretty nifty
[23:28] <plundra> And from what I read in the changes, loads of other stuff were redone etc.
[23:29] <Keybuk> the userspace was never really finished
[23:29] <Keybuk> and 0.5 has various other problems
[23:29] <Keybuk> none of its new features help Ubuntu
[23:29] <Keybuk> and I'd rather spend my effort working on 0.10
[23:29] <plundra> Ok, I see.
[23:29] <plundra> So what's planned for 0.10? :-D
[23:32] <Keybuk> lots
[23:33] <plundra> Mkay, rewrites again? (Lots of stuff was remade for 0.5, right?)
[23:35] <Keybuk> the main change is dropping "start on"/"stop on"
[23:36] <plundra> Oh, ok.