Re: Antw: Re: Re: "bad" status for genersated target; why?

[Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:29 PM Lennart Poettering
<lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mi, 15.05.19 12:25, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidjaar@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:17 PM Lennart Poettering
> > <lennart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To me it's the most horrible part of systemd: Messing with
> > > > symlinks...
> > >
> > > You should never need to. For all relevant operations there are
> > > "systemctl" verbs, i.e. "systemctl enable", "systemctl disable",
> > > "systemctl add-wants" and so on.
> > >
> >
> > So the following is a bug?
> >
> > localhost:~ # systemctl enable usr-local.mount
> > Failed to enable unit: Unit /run/systemd/generator/usr-local.mount is
> > transient or generated.
> > localhost:~ # exit
>
> Hmm?
>
> No? Why?

You just said that "You should never need to. [mess with symlinks].
For all relevant operations there are "systemctl"".

> generated units cannot be enabled, what am I missing?
>

You are apparently missing context to which you replied. This
discussion *is* about enabling generated units. Of course, we now
again have problem that everyone implies different meaning of
"enabled". To avoid this word altogether - generated unit can only be
included in initial transaction if it is dependency of some other unit
(already included in original transaction). You just claimed that to
establish such dependency one should use systemctl and I demonstrated
that this does not work. Either your claim is wrong, or the observed
behavior is a bug.
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel