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 :|