| 1 |
Am Thu, 14 Dec 2017 08:54:59 +0100 schrieb J. Roeleveld: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Some historical correctnesses about Canek: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> - He has been here for years - He has contributed here for years - He |
| 6 |
>> supports systemd and has offered more help and explanation about |
| 7 |
>> systemd to it's users on this list than any other single person, bar |
| 8 |
>> none - He has never, not once, slagged off SysV Init, OpenRC or any |
| 9 |
>> other init system, ot the creators or the users - He has never posted |
| 10 |
>> rude or inflamatory comments about anyone arguing against him - He has |
| 11 |
>> never resorted to ad-hominem and never posted any knee jerk opinions |
| 12 |
>> about any other poster wrt their stance on init systems |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> +1 I may not agree with Canek on all things: |
| 15 |
> - I do dislike systemd, especially on Centos where disabling services |
| 16 |
> doesn't always work past a reboot |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well, I think you're falling the pitfall expecting "disable" makes a unit |
| 19 |
unstartable. That is not the case. Disabling a unit only removes it from |
| 20 |
the list of units starting on your own intent. It can still be pulled it |
| 21 |
as a (required) dependency. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If you really want it never being started, you need to mask the unit. |
| 24 |
It's then no longer visible to the dependency resolver as if it were not |
| 25 |
installed at all. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The verbs disable and enable are arguably a bit misleading, while the |
| 28 |
verbs mask and unmask are not really obvious. But if you think of it, it |
| 29 |
actually makes sense. If you "rc-update del" a service, you wouldn't |
| 30 |
prevent it from being started neither, just because OpenRC is still able |
| 31 |
to pull it in as a dependency. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So it's actually not an argument for why you'd dislike systemd. ;-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
Kai |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |
Archives