On Wed 2016-04-13 18:52:23 -0400, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 14.04.2016 um 00:46 schrieb Michael Biebl: >> Am 13.04.2016 um 21:45 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor: >>> is there a reason to have a "tor.service" that is distinct from the >>> tor@*.service files? if not, maybe we could get rid of it entirely? >>> >>> If there is a reason to have it, how can we avoid having "systemctl >>> status tor" mask the statuses of the actual running (or failing) >>> services? >> >> The tor.service afaics is only used, so you have a >> systemctl restart/reload tor >> shortcut which propagates that request to all instances. >> tor.service in itself does not provide any service. >> >> >> So it is useful to have. > > I'm not sure. Maybe we can convince upstream that using "status" on a > service which is composed by several sub-services via PartOf [0], also > propagates the status request and merges that into a single output.
I like this idea, but am in no position to convince upstream that it is the right choice. --dkg _______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
