Hi Maxim & Attila, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: [...] >>>> When a service is stopped at the time of reconfigure, it is immediately >>>> replaced and then started. >>>> >>>> Replacing works by unregistering the old instance from the registry and >>>> registering a new one. As a side effect, you end up with an instance >>>> that’s enabled (see ‘service-registry’ in (shepherd services)). >>>> >>>> I never thought it could be a problem. WDYT? >>> >>> I think it probably goes against users' expectation (i.e., systemd) that >>> a disabled service stays disabled unless manually re-enabled (I think >>> that's the way it is for systemd, even when the system is upgraded?). >> >> Does systemd have a notion of enabled/disabled? > > Yes! 'systemctl disable <service>' [0]. It does stick around until the > user changes it, I can confirm the behavior which I've recently seen on > a Debian system upgrade (the service remained disabled and the updater > warned it wouldn't be restarted because of that). > > [0] > https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemctl.html#disable%20UNIT%E2%80%A6 > >> I’m fine either way. We can also change it such that replacing a >> disabled service does not re-enable it; that’s probably more logical. > > I guess sticking to the established convention set by systemd would > cause the least friction down the road. If we agree on this, we should > reopen this bug (and eventually fix it :-)). Agreed, fixed in Shepherd commit 52db31e5b061440cd110da4848ab230ce09f365a. Thanks! Ludo’.