On Sun, 19.04.15 17:08, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: > What about Wants-=e.service in dropin? Dropins are processed > after .{wants,requires}.d and has advantage that you can remove also > static dependency from unit definition file, not only mask another > directory.
This has been requested before, but I'd be very careful with this. I really don't want to turn this into a complex language really, and especially not in one that knows different kinds of assignments. I mean, already we aren't simple .ini files anymore, since we allow assigning the empty string for resets, and allow multiple assignments that add things up. But I'd *really* like to avoid deviating even further from the simplicity that ini files are. Or let's say it like this: I am very keen on keeping the file structure as simple as "just a list of key-value pairs", possibly with [sections] and comments, and that's it. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel