On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 04:37:31PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
Similarly to commit ec7e31ed3206, allow traditional daemon activation for virtproxyd.
I'm not convinced we want todo this. virtproxyd has supported socket activation since day 1, so I think we are right to enforce this, as we have no back compat/upgrade story to consider for virtproxyd, only libvirtd.
Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> --- src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in b/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in index f9bb6b84a97a..2557539fca8f 100644 --- a/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in +++ b/src/remote/virtproxyd.service.in @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ [Unit] Description=Virtualization daemon Conflicts=libvirtd.service -Requires=virtproxyd.socket -Requires=virtproxyd-ro.socket -Requires=virtproxyd-admin.socket +Wants=virtproxyd.socket +Wants=virtproxyd-ro.socket +Wants=virtproxyd-admin.socket After=network.target After=dbus.service After=apparmor.service -- 2.38.0
With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|