Am 02.01.19 um 12:12 schrieb Michael Chapman:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 02.01.19 um 11:49 schrieb Michael Chapman:
>>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> [...]
agreed, but why can't have socket simply optional a [Service] section to
save the
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 02.01.19 um 11:49 schrieb Michael Chapman:
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > [...]
> >> agreed, but why can't have socket simply optional a [Service] section to
> >> save the "demo@.service" in cases like below?
> >>
> >>
On Mi, 02.01.19 11:38, Olaf van der Spek (m...@vdspek.org) wrote:
> > I mean, I am all for changing and simplifying things, and even if this
> > creates temporary redundancy, but it has to stay temporary, i.e. there
> > needs to be a clear path to a new scheme that can cover the old scheme
> >
Am 02.01.19 um 11:49 schrieb Michael Chapman:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Reindl Harald wrote:
> [...]
>> agreed, but why can't have socket simply optional a [Service] section to
>> save the "demo@.service" in cases like below?
>>
>> [root@client:/etc/systemd/system]$ cat demo.socket
>> [Unit]
>>
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Reindl Harald wrote:
[...]
> agreed, but why can't have socket simply optional a [Service] section to
> save the "demo@.service" in cases like below?
>
> [root@client:/etc/systemd/system]$ cat demo.socket
> [Unit]
> Description=Demo Server - Activation Socket
>
> [Socket]
>
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> On Di, 01.01.19 13:46, Olaf van der Spek (m...@vdspek.org) wrote:
> We could of course add redundancy here, and allow socket activation
> both with embedded information in service unit files (as you suggest)
> and with separate socket
Am 02.01.19 um 11:05 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> On Di, 01.01.19 13:46, Olaf van der Spek (m...@vdspek.org) wrote:
>> AFAIK socket units require a separate file, which seems more complex
>> then it has to be.
>
> The main reason why socket and service units are separate is that this
> way
On Mi, 02.01.19 17:31, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> > 2. If not, could the .service file gain a default / implicit
> > dependency on the .socket file?
>
> There are a some reasons for not having a .service dependent upon its
> .socket. Many services can be started directly
On Di, 01.01.19 13:46, Olaf van der Spek (m...@vdspek.org) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK socket units require a separate file, which seems more complex
> then it has to be.
The main reason why socket and service units are separate is that this
way they may be separately scheduled. i.e. a socket can be
On 02/01/2019 07:31, Michael Chapman wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
AFAIK socket units require a separate file, which seems more complex
then it has to be.
1. Could sockets be specified directly in the .service file?
If anything, I should think it would work the
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK socket units require a separate file, which seems more complex
> then it has to be.
>
> 1. Could sockets be specified directly in the .service file?
If anything, I should think it would work the other way around: a .socket
without
11 matches
Mail list logo
