On Mon, 06.06.16 14:56, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 13:55 +0300]:
> >> What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in
> >> /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc
On 06/06/16 15:17, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Of course it could also just do the usual WantedBy= in the unit and
> call systemctl enable on installation (that's what the Debian package
> does)
Most Debian packages with systemd services do this, but there are
exceptions.
> but there are cases where
Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 14:56 +0300]:
> Sorry I had to be more clear. What is advantage of shipping them in
> systemd? Systemd has well defined early boot services that are always
> needed. Why they are shipped as links instead of actually expressing
> those mandatory dependencies in unit
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 13:55 +0300]:
>> What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in
>> /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition?
>> They complicate troubleshooting
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:27 PM Martin Pitt wrote:
> Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 13:55 +0300]:
> > What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in
> > /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition?
> > They complicate troubleshooting
Andrei Borzenkov [2016-06-06 13:55 +0300]:
> What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in
> /usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition?
> They complicate troubleshooting (you no more have complete definition
> by looking just at unit source), they
What is advantage in having static *.wants etc directories in
/usr/lib/systemd vs. Wants etc directives directly in unit definition?
They complicate troubleshooting (you no more have complete definition
by looking just at unit source), they complicate building (extra steps
to install them); what