On Fri, 07.11.14 14:24, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:06:41PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Fri, 07.11.14 09:49, Jan Synacek ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > > Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> writes: > > > > On Thu, 06.11.14 10:49, Jan Synacek ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think that this patch might be a bit ineffective, as it calls > > > >> unit_file_load() again just to get an InstallContext. I wasn't sure > > > >> how to get Also= targets in any other way. > > > >> > > > >> If such change makes sense, this patch should probably be considered a > > > >> preview rather than something to be committed right away. > > > > > > > > Hmm, wouldn't it be nicer to introduce a new UnitFileState enum value > > > > for this? > > > > > > > > Maybe UNIT_FILE_ALSO or so? > > > > > > > > I am not sure I like the idea of implicitly following the Also= setting > > > > here, due > > > > to the awkwarndess if multiple units are listed and how to map exotic > > > > states of that other unit back to ours... > > > > > > > > Would that make sense? > > > > > > > > Lennart > > > > > > Yes, that makes sense. What should a string representation of > > > UNIT_FILE_ALSO be? I don't think that reporting 'also' would feel > > > right. > Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't be enough to report is as 'enabled'? > For some units adding another name from Also= really enables the unit, > and for other units the name from Also= is mostly cosmetic. What I'm > trying to say is that having or not the Also= name enabled is only approximate > information and does not always tell us if the unit will be started. Also= isn't necessarily symmetric. If you have a service A and a service B, then it might very well be that B has Also=A.service, but not the other way round. I think there are only two strategies here: a) if a unit has Also= set, determine the state of the unit files listed in it, any propagate that. This is what Jan's patch did originally. But I am not sure I like this propagation since it leaves so many open questions regarding correct propagation the precise state and what to do if multiple units are listed. or b) just report that Also= is set, which is what I was proposing. This might not be particularly self-explanatory, but maybe we can explain this in the man page or so... > > I'd prefer to redefine enabled/disabled/static as "this unit has at > least on of the declared links in the filesystem/the unit does not > have any defined links in the filesystem/this unit does not declare > any links in the filesystem", which is something that we can actually > check. So, are you proposing to follow strategy a) then? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
