On Tue, 07.10.14 08:23, Jan Synacek (jsyna...@redhat.com) wrote: > Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> writes: > > On Mon, 06.10.14 13:21, Jan Synacek (jsyna...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > Hmm with this change in place we'd have different behaviour for the > > cases where systemctl executes the operation client-side, and when it > > goes via the bus. We really should keep those differences in behaviour > > to a minimum. > > > > I figure the verification for this really needs to be moved a few > > levels down, somewhere into unit_file_enable() and friends, so that > > all code paths behave the same. > > But that wouldn't fix a scenario where one uses just dbus to call the > method, would it? Maybe I'm missing something, but that's how I > understood the code so far. However, I agree that the fix is incomplete > and I'll try to fix that.
unit_file_enable() is what is used by both codepaths: the one via dbus, and the one executed directly in systemctl, from the client side. If you change unit_file_enable() you hence did the work for both sides. > While I'm at it, what about disable? Should it behave in the same way, > i.e. return error when the unit is masked? My guess is that yes, but I'm > not sure. disable, reenable, mask, unmask, should not be changed. Only enable, link and preset should get this check. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
