Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I don't understand one part: why do you say that creating a new target
requires writing C++ code?
Certainly new targets don't require C++ code, as systemd is written in
C! But I was trying to say that new targets with naively expected
synchronization behavior require new code. twb and ohsix also queried
me on this point in IRC. By 'expected synchronization behavior,' I mean
that the initialization will pause until all the 'Wants'-ed services
stabilize, perhaps indicating completion by reaching passive targets.
If it is in fact possible to write a new .target unit that will serve as
a new user-defined runlevel without writing C code, then my statement is
wrong. Please someone say so, before I tell others wrong information!
Also, drop-ins are not "run-time extensions", at least in the systemd
parlance, becuase they can appear both in /run (i.e. be runtime), and
/etc (i.e. be static).
Good point. I will improve that.
Thanks Zbigniew, ohsix and twb for all your helpful comments. I will
incorporate them when I have a chance.
-- Alison
---
Alison Chaiken [email protected], 650-279-5600
http://{ she-devel.com, exerciseforthereader.org }
"There is expressive potential in not being together." -- Mark Volkert,
Assistant Concertmaster, San Francisco Symphony
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
