On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 04:37:31PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: > Similarly to commit ec7e31ed3206, allow traditional daemon activation for > virtproxyd. I'm not convinced we want todo this. virtproxyd has supported socket activation since day 1, so I think we are right to enforce this, as we have no back compat/upgrade story to consider for virtproxyd, only libvirtd. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in b/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in > index f9bb6b84a97a..2557539fca8f 100644 > --- a/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in > +++ b/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in > @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ > [Unit] > Description=Virtualization daemon > Conflicts=libvirtd.service > -Requires=virtproxyd.socket > -Requires=virtproxyd-ro.socket > -Requires=virtproxyd-admin.socket > +Wants=virtproxyd.socket > +Wants=virtproxyd-ro.socket > +Wants=virtproxyd-admin.socket > After=network.target > After=dbus.service > After=apparmor.service > -- > 2.38.0 > With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
