On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, maybe syncing it to local-fs is not necessary, but we probably > want to sync it to basic.target at least. Mounts are not the only users > of block devices, so a later service might want to use it and hence we > should make sure that normal services (which are started after > basic.target) can rely that LVM stuff is set up. Some database servers > are able to use block devices directly, without any FS on them. > >> I have the same question about the different fsck services. They >> should clearly be Before=*.mount, but wouldn't it be better if they >> were not Before=local-fs.service? > > You have a point there. I have now relaxed this to base.target. (Just to > avoid confusion by stuff like udisks and other disk daemon software, > which we might not want to start at a time where the fsck is still going on).
Regarding syncing things with base.target: I agree that this is a good idea for the time being, to avoid a flood of bugs. However, in the long term would it not be better to avoid syncing stuff (like udev-settle.service, lvm.service, etc.) with base.target? If services cannot deal with this then 1) they are buggy as they would not be able to deal with devices being plugged/appearing after boot, so they should be fixed 2) in the interim they should get After=lvm.service (or whatever they rely on) to make it work like before and also make it clear that they are buggy. My apologies for going a bit off-topic... Cheers, Tom PS Sorry to Lennart for sending twice, I forgot to cc the ML _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
