Le 18/11/2014 17:17, Tom Gundersen a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Didier Roche <[email protected]> wrote:
Let's say as an admin that I want to disable plymouth-quit.service (which is
a static unit file and symlinked in /usr/lib… on the multi-user target).
Without knowing the systemd internals, my natural intent would be to use
"systemctl disable plymouth-quit.service" which is no-op in this case on a
static unit enabled on the multi-user target with the symlink shipped by the
package. This may be perceived as unnatural to him to have to use "systemctl
mask" to disable it, or am I just being too pessimistic?
Right, I get it. In this case we should definitely warn when someone
tries to disable a statically enabled unit. We should suggest to the
user that this package is not meant to be disabled, but one can use
masking instead (voiding the warranty, etc, etc).
Agreed, this one is as well orthogonal to this discussion anyway and
should be implemented in any case for static units, warning people to
use mask for those cases (voiding the distro warranty as you told :))
/me notes that down as another patch to work on.
Cheers,
Didier
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
