On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 6:26 PM Wojtek Swiatek wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have an nspawn container which is currently connected to a bridge on the
> host:
>
> root@srv /e/s/nspawn# cat domotique.nspawn
> [Exec]
> Boot=yes
> [Network]
> Bridge=br0
> #Bridge=wlx00c0ca384bd9
>
> This results in
Wojtek Swiatek :
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have an nspawn container which is currently connected to a bridge on the
> host:
>
> root@srv /e/s/nspawn# cat domotique.nspawn
> [Exec]
> Boot=yes
> [Network]
> Bridge=br0
> #Bridge=wlx00c0ca384bd9
>
> This results in a host0 interface being present in
Hello everyone,
I have an nspawn container which is currently connected to a bridge on the
host:
root@srv /e/s/nspawn# cat domotique.nspawn
[Exec]
Boot=yes
[Network]
Bridge=br0
#Bridge=wlx00c0ca384bd9
This results in a host0 interface being present in the container.
Everything works.
I now
a.service will just not stop after it gets activated, and b.service fails.
Otherwise, the start job is cancelled with a JOB_DEPENDENCY job result. If
you need those semantics (and people often do), use After=, so that the
start job for a waits for the running job of b to complete (note that if
you
Make of that what you will. I was expecting a.service to stop because
b.service failed, but apparently my understanding of this isn't quite
right.
And that's kinda my point... most people (me included until recently)
expect that behaviour
I think the overall conclusion of that conversation
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:23 AM James Feeney wrote:
> > What Reindl Harald was saying was that "Requires" should have an
> > implicit "After" because it wouldn't make sense for a.service to
> > require b.service but to start before b.service.
>
> I understand that Reindl has said that. But, just
