[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A few observations about systemd

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Simon McVittie (smcv@debian.org) [110724 23:52]:
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 at 21:59:40 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > even init.d has a documented (and what's
> > > more, actually *working*) implementation of not starting daemons at
> > > boot. It's called 'remove the ******* symlink'.
> > 
> > If you remove them, they'll be recreated by the next upgrade; the right
> Only if you remove all. If you keep at least one symlink (e.g. only
> remove the startup symlinks) they are not recreated.

Still, I think it's quite fair to say that the current system is
both baroque and underdocumented.  If you were to ask a typical user,
and likely most developers, what the correct way was to disable a
service, I doubt you'd get a consistent or correct answer.  I'll admit
that I gave up in frustration and added "exit 0" to a few scripts in
my time.

Do we actually have a standardised interface that can disable a service
and then reenable it so that it is in exactly the same state as before
it was disabled, without requiring black magic and/or prior knowledge
of the correct runlevels?  update-rc.d certainly isn't it.
Having a "service foobar enable|disable" type of action would be a
major improvement, and save the need for horrible "ENABLED=yes" type
settings in /etc/default, or manual editing of scripts.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: