Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-06-18 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-31 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
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

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-28 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-28 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
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

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-28 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
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

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-28 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
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, >

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-28 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-27 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
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

Re: [systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-26 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

[systemd-devel] Vendor default masked service

2015-05-26 Thread Umut Tezduyar Lindskog
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.