On Feb 25, 2012, at 12:42 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > Well, I fudged a little here. You're right that, as written above, nis is > not guaranteed to start before autofs. Due to a (well-understood and > recognized) limitation of upstart's current event handling, if the > 'runlevel' event is seen before 'starting autofs', the subsequent 'starting > autofs' event will *not* block waiting for nis to be started, and so the > startup will happen in parallel. > > This can be worked around by having two separate jobs for nis, one which is > 'start on starting autofs (or starting $other_service_that_wants_nis)' and > calls 'exec start wait-for-state WAIT_FOR=nis WAITER="$UPSTART_EVENTS"', and > the other which is 'start on runlevel [2345]' and handles starting nis > itself.
And this is what I meant earlier when I said that systemd has a much cleaner and consistent design. It doesn't need these quirks, it was designed and written with all these scenarios in mind. Of course, software is never perfect, but I'd say this is a fundamental feature which should work without external quirks. Adrian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/55f34108-58b5-4f62-aa1f-eec9fc6f9...@physik.fu-berlin.de
