On Mon, 25.03.13 17:49, Michal Schmidt ([email protected]) wrote: > > On 03/23/2013 03:14 AM, Lennart Poettering 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? > > You are right. It would do exactly this wrong thing. > I need to rethink.
As discussed on IRC I have now commited a patch that adds a new target "remote-fs-setup.target" which is now used to pull in things (without ordering), and is different from "remote-fs-pre.target" which is now used again to order things (without pulling things in). http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=e8d2f6cde0af86eece9118718ad0a8a19e1cffec Now, I don't actually have any remote mounts here locally, so I am really looking for some feedback before I release this with 199. This is the last thing I wanted to get settled before 199, so I'd be very thankful if somebody could test this in a setup that actually makes sense. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
