On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 04:02:55PM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 14:42:09 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 03:14:08PM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > > When checking for machined we do not really care whether systemd itself > > > is running, we just need machined to be either running or socket > > > activated by systemd. That is, exactly the same we do for logind. > > > > That's not right. We very much *do* care whether systemd is > > running. > > > > If systemd-machined is installed on the host but the OS is > > booted into sysvinit, then DBus will report that machined > > can be activated, but if it is activated then it certainly > > won't actually work. > > I guess I didn't explain myself correctly, but this just changes our > machind service check to do the same we do for logind. That is, machine1 > service must be enabled (listed by ListActivatableNames). If it is, it > must already be running (reported by ListNames) or systemd must be > running. > > Are you saying we should properly handle situations when a service we > want to talk to is already running, but cannot work because systemd is > not running? I would expect the service never be running in such case as > it would just fail to start without systemd. Hmm, I guess that's safe enough actually. 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 :| _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
