Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/418 Control: tags -1 confirmed upstream
On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:52:55 -0800 Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > Package: systemd > Version: 204-6 > Severity: minor > > As part of the discussion in the tech-ctte bug report, there seemed to > be general agreement (I haven't checked the source code) that systemd > automatically adds an implicit After= to a service unit on a socket > unit with the same name. I don't think this is currently documented > in systemd.service(5). On v220, it is in systemd.socket: > Socket units will have a Before= dependency on the service which they > trigger added implicitly. No implicit WantedBy= or RequiredBy= dependency > from the socket to the > service is added. This means that the service may be started without > the socket, in which case it must be able to open sockets by itself. To > prevent this, an explicit > Requires= dependency may be added. > > There should probably also be a note under Sockets= saying whether > this implicit After= also applies to any units listed in Sockets=. This is indeed not documented. Filed an upstream bug. > > It may also be good to note in daemon(7) under Socket-Based Activation > (maybe, or maybe under Writing Systemd Unit Files) that service units > written to support socket activation should consider a Requires= on > the socket unit. Without this, it's possible to get inconsistent > behavior if the service is not configured to start at boot and then > it's started manually, or if the admin disables the socket. This may > be intentional flexibility in some cases, where the service unit is > explicitly written to support either service activation or binding its > own sockets, but I at least found the behavior without Requires= to be > surprising and unexpected. This is already documented in systemd.socket as quoted above. Saludos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
