[Install] for static systemd unit file?

[Michael Biebl]

Am 01.03.2017 um 21:51 schrieb Patrick Schleizer:
> Michael Biebl:
>> Am 01.03.2017 um 21:35 schrieb Patrick Schleizer:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> TLDR:
>>>
>>> How should the [Install] section for static systemd unit file look like?
>>
>> The obvious question is: why does this service need to be statically
>> enabled?
> 
> Given the example... With this socket / service file combination, I
> wouldn't know how to enable the service non-statically. In the current
> implementation it looks to me right, and works.

Just wanted to add that this was partially a misunderstanding on my
part. When Patrick was talking about a static service, I was thinking
about one which is enabled by shipping symlinks in the package in /lib/.

I guess what Patrick wants is a service which simply has no [Install]
section at all, because it's not activated by being pulled in via a
target but via some other triggers.
This is perfectly fine, fwiw. Lintian is just overly ambitious here.

Instead of inventing a WantedBy=none.target, it's better to just ignore
or override that lintian warning.

That all said, socket activation is not only about lazy loading, as you
mentioned in a later email. It's more about avoid explicit dependencies.
It's perfectly fine to have a socket-activated service which is also
pulled in by a target like multi-user.target.

Hope that clarifies. Sorry for the confusion this might have caused.

Michael

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-systemd-maintainers/attachments/20170303/c095487e/attachment-0002.sig>