On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:51:01PM +0200, Ross Lagerwall wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 04:12:33PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:11:50PM +0100, Ross Lagerwall wrote: > > > Before, "systemctl reenable getty@tty1.service" would fail with: > > > Failed to issue method call: File exists > > > To fix this, reimplement "reenable" explicitly as a disable followed by > > > an enable. > > > This is shorter and is how the man page documents its behavior. > > > --- > > > src/shared/install.c | 38 +++++--------------------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > Hm, I don't get this error with "reenable", but your patch indeed > > simplifies things, so I don't see a reason not to apply it: applied now. > > > As far as I can recall, it would fail if > /etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants/getty@tty1.service is set up as a > symlink to /usr/lib/systemd/system/getty@.service and then "systemctl > reenable getty@tty1.service" is run. That's the scenario I tested, and it worked (and works) fine. There have been some changes to make unit disabling more robust, so this might have been fixed as a side effect.
We really should grow some test cases for unit enabling/disabling/starting, it seems that there are some gray areas. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
