On Sun, 07.12.14 14:37, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote:
Hi David,
We may want to introduce a mechanism for installed, but not enabled
configuration snippets, but we haven't quite figured it out yet.
In the meantime, you can give your files a custom suffix or keep them in a
sub
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
wrote:
Yeah, I think we should just suggest people to rename files they want
to disable. We should probably recommend a convention though, for
example .disabled as suffix. We should recommend the convention
simply
On Mon, 08.12.14 18:55, Mantas Mikulėnas (graw...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
wrote:
Yeah, I think we should just suggest people to rename files they want
to disable. We should probably recommend a convention though, for
Hi David,
We may want to introduce a mechanism for installed, but not enabled
configuration snippets, but we haven't quite figured it out yet.
In the meantime, you can give your files a custom suffix or keep them in a
sub directory, then either move or symlink to enable. This is likely how
the
Folks,
I would like to introduce a flag enable=Boolean in the networkd configuration
files.
I am introducing new features that can create a large amount of configuration.
Deleting and restoring configuration can be quiet laborious
Renaming the files to another extension is possibly another
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, O Neill, David M wrote:
What do you think?
I think this should be consisted with other unit enablement in systemd
not handled by introducing a new enabled/disabled flag
JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On
Behalf Of Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 3:55 PM
To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] networkd link state
On 12/04/2014 03:47
On 2014/12/04 17:54, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, O Neill, David M wrote:
What do you think?
I think this should be consisted with other unit enablement in systemd
not handled by introducing a new enabled/disabled flag
I think the idea has some merit. But I also
: Thursday, December 4, 2014 4:06 PM
To: 'Jóhann B. Guðmundsson'; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: RE: [systemd-devel] networkd link state
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: systemd-devel [mailto:systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On
Behalf Of Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
Sent
On 12/04/2014 04:36 PM, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2014/12/04 17:54, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, O Neill, David M wrote:
What do you think?
I think this should be consisted with other unit enablement in
systemd not handled by introducing a new enabled/disabled flag
I
On Thu, 04.12.14 16:53, O Neill, David M (david.m.one...@intel.com) wrote:
Jóhann/All,
If you could expand on how you solve the following:
Systemd-networkd is a single process and it reads its configuration
from /etc/systemd/network.
How do unit files, solve a single process managing
11 matches
Mail list logo