On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:56 AM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> On So, 19.05.19 11:45, Olaf van der Spek (m...@vdspek.org) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > ExecStartPre is sometimes used to check the configuration. Does this
> > make sense?
>
> I don't think it
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 12:26 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.05.19 um 11:45 schrieb Olaf van der Spek:
> > ExecStartPre is sometimes used to check the configuration. Does this make
> > sense?
> > It seems this causes a lot of code to run twice, as the configuration
>
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 2:31 PM tedheadster wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:31 AM Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> >
> > What's eax after cpuid function 0?
>
> After calling cpuid function 0x0, %eax returns the expected 0x1.
>
> Here is the output of 'cpu
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:19 PM tedheadster wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 12:30 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Can you capture register contents at the point of the crash?
> >
> > Does this reproduce in a chroot? Maybe you can trace the whole thing
> > with a debugger. Does the crash
Hi,
ExecStartPre is sometimes used to check the configuration. Does this make sense?
It seems this causes a lot of code to run twice, as the configuration
is checked on the real invocation anyway.
[Unit]
Description=Lighttpd Daemon
After=network-online.target
[Service]
Type=simple
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
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:51 PM James Feeney wrote:
>
> On 1/2/19 12:50 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > Activation by itself guarantees basically nothing.
>
> "Activation" guarantees activation.
Eh, yes, but what does that guarantee mean?
Activation can fail so effec
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:05 AM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> On Di, 01.01.19 13:46, Olaf van der Spek (m...@vdspek.org) wrote:
> We could of course add redundancy here, and allow socket activation
> both with embedded information in service unit files (as you suggest)
> and with
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jérémy Rosen wrote:
> i.e if A Requires B, you would expect failures of B to prevent A from
> starting.
> * This is not the case if B is (randomly) scheduled after A.
> * This is the case if B is (randomly) scheduled before A.
> This is the race the implicit After=
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:14 AM Michael Chapman wrote:
> > What good is an activation dependency without an ordering dependency?
>
> The problem is that it's not necessarily clear _which_ ordering dependency
> is required. systemd can't just assume one way or the other.
>
> I have two services on
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:22 AM James Feeney wrote:
> systemd has two different classes of "dependencies": 1) "activation"
> dependencies, and 2) "ordering" dependencies.
>
> An activation dependency does not, a priori, have to obey any rules about
> ordering. There are not, automatically, any
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:17 PM Ian Pilcher wrote:
>
> On 1/1/19 5:44 AM, Jérémy Rosen wrote:
> > The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
> > since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it
> > (if it fails at startup, you might or might not be
Hi,
AFAIK socket units require a separate file, which seems more complex
then it has to be.
1. Could sockets be specified directly in the .service file?
2. If not, could the .service file gain a default / implicit
dependency on the .socket file?
3. AFAIK Install.WantedBy doesn't have a default.
On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jérémy Rosen wrote:
>
> The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
> since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it
> (if it fails at startup, you might or might not be started, depending
> on the startup order systemd
Hi,
Evverx suggested I ask here @ https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/11284
It's about Requires and After. I think a unit in Requires should imply
that unit in After too, otherwise the requirement isn't really met.
Is there a use case for Requires but not After?
If not, would it make sense
15 matches
Mail list logo
