Re: Can I provide separate enabling for dbus-activation and "normal" start ?

[Max Gautier <mg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:19:12AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 22.02.24 17:09, Max Gautier (mg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> 
> > Is it possible when writing a dbus-activable service to provide two
> > separate and independent ways to enable it ?
> >
> > The D-Bus service file would for instance be:
> > [D-BUS Service]
> > Name=org.freedesktop.Notifications
> > Exec=notification-daemon
> > SystemdService=dbus-org.freedesktop.Notifications.service
> >
> > The systemd service:
> > [Unit]
> > PartOf=graphical-session.target
> > After=graphical-session.target
> >
> > [Service]
> > Type=dbus
> > BusName=org.freedesktop.Notifications
> > ExecStart=notification-daemon
> >
> > [Install]
> > Alias=dbus-org.freedesktop.Notifications.service
> > WantedBy=graphical-session.target
> >
> >
> > With that systemd service file, `systemctl enable` would cause the
> > service to be started by graphical-session.target and by
> > dbus-activation; but it is possible to have two separate enable
> > commands, one which would enable the dbus activation, one the
> > graphical-session start ?
> >
> > I suppose I should have two separate unit files but I'm not completely
> > sure how to do that without copying the whole file (i.e, is there some
> > Install/Unit relation I can use for that ?)
> 
> No, in systemd there's only one "systemctl enable" and it applies the
> [Install] section of the unit file, and that's really all there is.
> 
> You can probably add two unit files and use Alias= so that they pick a
> common name as alias.

I guess I'll end up doing that. Thanks for the confirmation then

> 
> But one unit cannot have two distinct [Install] sections, if that's
> what you are looking for.
> 
> Lennart
> 
> --
> Lennart Poettering, Berlin

-- 
Max Gautier