On Mon, 01.06.15 08:25, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> >> > Wouldn't that work?
> >>
> >> For dbus activation it would work but other services can still
> >> activate the service through systemd.
> >
> > But why is that a problem? If daemons explicitly request another
> > serv
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Thu, 28.05.15 13:56, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27.05.15 13:05, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tu
On Thu, 28.05.15 13:56, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27.05.15 13:05, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Lennart Poettering
> >> wrote:
> >> > O
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov
wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 12:56, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27.05.15 13:05, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>>>
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:1
On 28 May 2015 at 12:56, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27.05.15 13:05, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Lennart Poettering
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 26.05.15 11:53, U
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 27.05.15 13:05, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 26.05.15 11:53, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>
On Wed, 27.05.15 13:05, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26.05.15 11:53, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I was wondering if we have a way to provide vendor default
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Tue, 26.05.15 11:53, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering if we have a way to provide vendor default masked
>> service?
>
> Well, so far our thinking was that if the vendor wants to make a u
On Tue, 26.05.15 11:53, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog (u...@tezduyar.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if we have a way to provide vendor default masked
> service?
Well, so far our thinking was that if the vendor wants to make a unit
completely unavailable he should simply not ship it in the first
Hi,
I was wondering if we have a way to provide vendor default masked service?
Vendor default masked service has advantages like:
- systemctl start won't work
- dbus activation won't work
It is common that an embedded system doesn't use packages, rather it
ships everything in monolithic image.
10 matches
Mail list logo