On Mon, 08.12.14 18:55, Mantas Mikulėnas (graw...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> > wrote: > > > > Yeah, I think we should just suggest people to rename files they want > > to disable. We should probably recommend a convention though, for > > example ".disabled" as suffix. We should recommend the convention > > simply because in some cases we want the option to place multiple file > > types the same dir, and we need to make sure that whatever people > > rename things to doesn't turn it into something we might consider a > > valid file name later on again. > > > > I am tempted to just say ".disabled" as suffix is the easiest option, > > but maybe somebody has better ideas? > > How about ignoring the file if <fullname>.masked exists? touch/rm is a bit > easier than renaming.
The word "masking" I'd really not overload for this, that should be exclusively used for /de/null symlinks... I think I find the renaming thing a bitmore intuitive, as it doesn't create the question what to put in the files to create... > Was thinking earlier about suggesting that for generators (which can't > really be renamed). Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
