Comment 4 for bug 1803212

What you described seems okay to us, as really the thing we want to not ever happen is to have a service manually disabled by a user start up again "inadvertently". The use case that's most important to us is:

* user disables a service (say SVC1), (and it's not running currently)
* user modifies some wide ranging config files, etc.
* user issues `snap restart` to restart all the services in the snap
* SVC1 does not start running

which under your proposal would happen.

I was under the thinking that snapd should never automatically start a "disabled" service (either running or not running), but I think I can be more strict in saying that snapd should never automatically start a "disabled and not running" service, as that's the use case that affects us the most negatively.