On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 13.03.13 01:44, Michal Schmidt ([email protected]) wrote: > >> Attempt to satisfy requirement dependencies retroactively even if >> the unexpectedly activated unit would prefer to be started After them. >> >> This way remote-fs-pre.target can be pulled in by performing a manual >> mount (the mount units have both Wants= and After= >> remote-fs-pre.target). > > I am a bit concerned abou this. Wouldn't this also mean that if a mount > for /foobar/waldo suddenly shows up we'd still retroactively mount /foobar > too, > if that happens to have a unit file? That sounds wrong, no?
If that happens, it sounds especially wrong since /foobar would be mounted *on top*, denying access to /foobar/waldo... -- Mantas Mikulėnas <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
