Re: Dependencies are not automatically activated with `set enable`; is that correct?

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: <lumaro_at_disroot.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2026 22:24:29 +0200

El 2026-10-21 21:42, aitor escribió:

> Hi Luis,
>
> On 10/21/26 18:30, lumaro.disroot.org via supervision wrote:
>
>> the same applies to any service that has dbus as a dependency--for
>> instance, `seatd` or `cupsd`
>
> `seatd` doesn't depend on dbus
>
> Cheers,
>
> Aitor.

Sorry for the mistake; I meant dbus and cupsd.
Received on Wed Oct 21 2026 - 22:24:29 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: lumaro_at_disroot.org: "Re: Dependencies are not automatically activated with `set enable`; is that correct?"
Previous message: Brett Neumeier: "Re: Dependencies are not automatically activated with `set enable`; is that correct?"
Maybe in reply to: lumaro_at_disroot.org: "Dependencies are not automatically activated with `set enable`; is that correct?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed Oct 21 2026 - 22:25:11 CEST