В Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:39:50 +0200 Martin Pitt <martin.p...@ubuntu.com> пишет:
> Hello all, > > sorry for the late response. > > Andrei Borzenkov [2014-12-05 10:58 +0300]: > > That's not how I actually understood it. enable/disable still applies > > only to units with [Install] section as it is now. Just that > > Correct. I don't see any need to change the behaviour of static units, > and I don't want to change the "visible effect" of systemctl/disable, > nor the current semantics of changing wants/ symlinks in /etc. > > > unit foo.service is disabled if > > [...[ > > 2. There are no links from [Install] in /usr/lib or /etc *OR* there are > > links in /usr/lib which are masked in /etc. > > Indeed the part after the "OR" is the only change that I propose. I. e. > > - systemctl enable: If /usr/.../wants/foo.service exists, remove the > /dev/null symlink in /etc/.../wants/foo.service if it exists (if > not, it's already enabled). Otherwise, behave as now. > > - systemctl disable: If /usr/.../wants/foo.service exists, create a > /dev/null symlink in /etc/.../wants/foo.service if it doesn't exist > yet (if it does, it's already disabled). Otherwise, behave as now. > I think systemctl enable|disable should always create respective links in /etc. It makes it obvious that this is admin decision. It also makes implementation easier. And systemctl reset (or equiv.) would simply delete any link in /etc thus reverting to (distribution) defaults in /usr. > > This will allow to cleanly separate distribution default (/usr/lib) and > > admin decision (/etc). Also this will allow systemctl list-unit-files to > > supply information like > > > > enabled (default)/enabled (admin) > > > > depending on whether link in /usr/lib or /etc exists. > > Exactly. > > Thanks, > > Martin _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel