lennart at poettering.net
Tue Jan 27 13:30:48 PST 2015
On Tue, 27.01.15 15:45, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek at in.waw.pl) wrote:
> Yes, I think attempting any kind of dependency removal *from loaded
> units* would be very complicated, and would require major surgery to
> current unit engine. And things would become conceptually more complicated,
> which we certainly don't need.
> But masking of .wants/ links is something different I think. It is a
> *localized* modification to a single configuration file. We currently
> allow overridding of almost all configuration (units files, files in
> .d directories, recently even generators), but .wants and .requires
> are an exception. I think we should allow this. Apart from current
> use case, it would things more consistent for the user.
Hmm, I am open to allowing to override the symlinks with symlinks, if
you follow what I mean. But i'd be careful with allowing to override
stuff listed in Wants= in a unit file in /usr, with a symlink in a
.wants/ dir in /etc, if you follow what I mean.
But yeah, allowing symlinks to override symlinks makes sense, a patch
for that would be good.
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
More information about the systemd-devel