On Fri, 07.11.14 03:02, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > I must say I kinda like the fact that pulling in and reaching > > "basic.target" makes sure all those background things that can fire > > have been set up for firing, and everything else can then just assume > > that things are available and ready. > > Yes, that's true, but OTOH, there's a downside to complexity. We have to > explain the difference between timers, and timer-calendar... Timers > can have multiple On* stanzas, so adding an OnCalendar= would move > the timer from one group to another, which would mean that adding > a new On* stanza could *delay* a timer. This behaviour would have to > be documented and explained. I find the idea of simply saying > "timers by default are started asynchronously on boot" much nicer. Well, sure, we'd have to document this, but it's really just one sentence. I think in real-life we'll probably not have too many timers that mix monotonic and calendar triggers... I mean, you do have a point, they are asynchronous anyway, there are no latency guarantees, and it is hence of little value to know that they are established before basic.target... Maybe I can live with moving timers.target to a later point, but somebody needs to update the bootup(7) graphic now! Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel