Talk:Daemons list

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 15:30, 15 August 2013 by Lahwaacz (talk | contribs) (Out of date: re)
Jump to: navigation, search

Should dbus be labeled as automatically handled?

systemctl enable dbus.service

The unit files have no [Install] section. They are not meant to be enabled using systemctl.

JKAbrams 2012-11-01

I agree. According to the error prompted:
3) A unit may be started when needed via activation (socket, path, timer, D-Bus, udev, scripted systemctl call, ...)
--Ortegamarvin (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There's always on note next to dbus.service, closing. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of date

Regarding the out of date flag, since the article title is not "Initscripts/systemd daemon conversion table" but a more generic "Daemons list", I think listing daemons without an initscripts counterpart could be allowed. -- Kynikos (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. When the netctl services are added to the list, should the netcfg services (net-auto-wireless etc.) stay, or be deleted? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say just delete them. If you are doing it, would you mind also updating or removing the "For each daemon the name of the script (for initscripts) and of the service (for systemd) is given" sentence? -- Kynikos (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. Also I don't like links in the initscripts column, I think separate package column with links to ArchWiki pages (or with Pkg template if no such page exists) would be better. rowspan could be used to clearly list all daemons/services provided by certain package. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made some changes, see if you like the new layout. I was not sure by which column should the table be sorted, but using sortable in the table class solves it. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)