On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:22 AM James Feeney wrote:
> systemd has two different classes of "dependencies": 1) "activation"
> dependencies, and 2) "ordering" dependencies.
>
> An activation dependency does not, a priori, have to obey any rules about
> ordering. There are not, automatically, any p
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK socket units require a separate file, which seems more complex
> then it has to be.
>
> 1. Could sockets be specified directly in the .service file?
If anything, I should think it would work the other way around: a .socket
without any
On 1/1/19 8:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> "After" is a soft dependency, if that unit isn't enabled or don#t exist
> at all it don't matter
>
> "Requires" is a hard dependency and it makes no sense not imply ordering
And then, what do you mean by "soft dependency" and "hard dependency"? It
sound
Am 02.01.19 um 04:13 schrieb James Feeney:
>> It's about Requires and After. I think a unit in Requires should imply
>> that unit in After too, otherwise the requirement isn't really met.
>> Is there a use case for Requires but not After?
>
> Olaf, previously, on GitHub, you had said:
>
>>> I t
> It's about Requires and After. I think a unit in Requires should imply
> that unit in After too, otherwise the requirement isn't really met.
> Is there a use case for Requires but not After?
Olaf, previously, on GitHub, you had said:
>> I think I understand Requires and After ...
and, I would
Am 01.01.19 um 20:24 schrieb Tomasz Torcz:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 08:20:19PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:17 PM Ian Pilcher wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/1/19 5:44 AM, Jérémy Rosen wrote:
The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
since
On Tue, Jan 01, 2019 at 08:20:19PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:17 PM Ian Pilcher wrote:
> >
> > On 1/1/19 5:44 AM, Jérémy Rosen wrote:
> > > The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
> > > since you can't reliably know if your dependency is
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:17 PM Ian Pilcher wrote:
>
> On 1/1/19 5:44 AM, Jérémy Rosen wrote:
> > The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
> > since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it
> > (if it fails at startup, you might or might not be starte
On 1/1/19 5:44 AM, Jérémy Rosen wrote:
The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it
(if it fails at startup, you might or might not be started, depending
on the startup order systemd chooses)
There are ca
Hi,
AFAIK socket units require a separate file, which seems more complex
then it has to be.
1. Could sockets be specified directly in the .service file?
2. If not, could the .service file gain a default / implicit
dependency on the .socket file?
3. AFAIK Install.WantedBy doesn't have a default.
Am 01.01.19 um 12:44 schrieb Jérémy Rosen:
> The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
> since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it
> (if it fails at startup, you might or might not be started, depending
> on the startup order systemd chooses)
>
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jérémy Rosen wrote:
>
> The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
> since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it
> (if it fails at startup, you might or might not be started, depending
> on the startup order systemd c
The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it
(if it fails at startup, you might or might not be started, depending
on the startup order systemd chooses)
however, for backward compatibility reasons, those tw
13 matches
Mail list logo
