Am 01.03.2017 um 21:51 schrieb Patrick Schleizer: > Michael Biebl: >> Am 01.03.2017 um 21:35 schrieb Patrick Schleizer: >>> Hi! >>> >>> TLDR: >>> >>> How should the [Install] section for static systemd unit file look like? >> >> The obvious question is: why does this service need to be statically >> enabled? > > Given the example... With this socket / service file combination, I > wouldn't know how to enable the service non-statically. In the current > implementation it looks to me right, and works.
Just wanted to add that this was partially a misunderstanding on my part. When Patrick was talking about a static service, I was thinking about one which is enabled by shipping symlinks in the package in /lib/. I guess what Patrick wants is a service which simply has no [Install] section at all, because it's not activated by being pulled in via a target but via some other triggers. This is perfectly fine, fwiw. Lintian is just overly ambitious here. Instead of inventing a WantedBy=none.target, it's better to just ignore or override that lintian warning. That all said, socket activation is not only about lazy loading, as you mentioned in a later email. It's more about avoid explicit dependencies. It's perfectly fine to have a socket-activated service which is also pulled in by a target like multi-user.target. Hope that clarifies. Sorry for the confusion this might have caused. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
