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. > 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 -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel