Michael Biebl: > Am 01.03.2017 um 21:51 schrieb Patrick Schleizer: >> Michael Biebl: >>> Am 01.03.2017 um 21:35 schrieb Patrick Schleizer: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> TLDR: >>>> >>>> How should the [Install] section for static systemd unit file look like? >>> >>> The obvious question is: why does this service need to be statically >>> enabled? >> >> Given the example... With this socket / service file combination, I >> wouldn't know how to enable the service non-statically. In the current >> implementation it looks to me right, and works. > > Just wanted to add that this was partially a misunderstanding on my > part. When Patrick was talking about a static service, I was thinking > about one which is enabled by shipping symlinks in the package in /lib/. > > I guess what Patrick wants is a service which simply has no [Install] > section at all, because it's not activated by being pulled in via a > target but via some other triggers.
This summary is totally right. > This is perfectly fine, fwiw. Lintian is just overly ambitious here. > > Instead of inventing a WantedBy=none.target, it's better to just ignore > or override that lintian warning. Yes, doing that now. > That all said, socket activation is not only about lazy loading, as you > mentioned in a later email. It's more about avoid explicit dependencies. > It's perfectly fine to have a socket-activated service which is also > pulled in by a target like multi-user.target. That's an important information. Learned something. :) > Hope that clarifies. Sorry for the confusion this might have caused. No problem. I appreciate your help here on this list and my daily Debian anyhow. :) Cheers, Patrick
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
