On Mon, 08.12.14 18:55, Mantas Mikulėnas ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Lennart Poettering
> 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 ".disab
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Lennart Poettering
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
On Sun, 07.12.14 14:37, Tom Gundersen ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> We may want to introduce a mechanism for installed, but not enabled
> configuration snippets, but we haven't quite figured it out yet.
>
> In the meantime, you can give your files a custom suffix or keep them in a
> sub
Hi David,
We may want to introduce a mechanism for installed, but not enabled
configuration snippets, but we haven't quite figured it out yet.
In the meantime, you can give your files a custom suffix or keep them in a
sub directory, then either move or symlink to enable. This is likely how
the up
On Thu, 04.12.14 16:53, O Neill, David M ([email protected]) wrote:
> Jóhann/All,
>
> If you could expand on how you solve the following:
>
> Systemd-networkd is a single process and it reads its configuration
> from /etc/systemd/network.
>
> How do unit files, solve a single process mana
On 12/04/2014 04:36 PM, Brendan Hide wrote:
On 2014/12/04 17:54, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, O Neill, David M wrote:
What do you think?
I think this should be consisted with other unit enablement in
systemd not handled by introducing a new enabled/disabled "flag"
: Thursday, December 4, 2014 4:06 PM
To: '"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [systemd-devel] networkd link state
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: systemd-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of &q
On 2014/12/04 17:54, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, O Neill, David M wrote:
What do you think?
I think this should be consisted with other unit enablement in systemd
not handled by introducing a new enabled/disabled "flag"
I think the idea has some merit. But I also t
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: systemd-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 3:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] networkd link state
On 12/04/
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, O Neill, David M wrote:
What do you think?
I think this should be consisted with other unit enablement in systemd
not handled by introducing a new enabled/disabled "flag"
JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lis
Folks,
I would like to introduce a flag "enable=Boolean" in the networkd configuration
files.
I am introducing new features that can create a large amount of configuration.
Deleting and restoring configuration can be quiet laborious
Renaming the files to another extension is possibly another opt
11 matches
Mail list logo
