Re: Masking local configuration system unit fails on file collision

[Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>]

22.03.2019 8:03, Vito Caputo пишет:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 06:46:21AM +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
>> Masking *is* local configuration. It's there so that the admin could
>> simulate deleting a unit from /usr, which is considered more-or-less
>> read-only; same idea as overriding /usr units in general.
>>
>> When you've created your own unit in /etc, there's no point in masking it
>> if you can just move the unit file away.
> 
> From the perspective of the user running `systemctl mask $foo` where the
> service file happens to be is completely out of context.  It should work
> uniformly, not break spuriously because the config file is in
> /etc/systemd/system.
> 
> Not to mention it's absurd to require the user to have to move the
> service file somewhere else to accomodate the mask then have ot remember
> what convention they used to either rename it to something like
> foo.service~ or what directory they stowed the thing in when the time
> comes to unmask it.
> 
> I'm surprised this requires any debate, nice top post btw.
> 

I do not debate that current behavior is inconsistent. But as
implemented currently there is no easy way to support uniform masking of
units.

So you would need to start with proposal (and I suspect it will need to
include more than "use different directory") that can actually be
discussed.

_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel