On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 2:59 AM Uoti Urpala wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 00:34 +, Jonathon Kowalski wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 5:05 PM Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > > I think you're wrong here. It makes perfect sense that if unit A has
> > > Requires= for another unit, stopping that requ
On Sun, 2019-01-20 at 00:34 +, Jonathon Kowalski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 5:05 PM Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > I think you're wrong here. It makes perfect sense that if unit A has
> > Requires= for another unit, stopping that required unit which A can't
> > work without will stop A too. Remo
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 5:05 PM Uoti Urpala wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 15:54 +, Jonathon Kowalski wrote:
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1154 which is similar in
> > nature convinces me that systemd currently conflates two many
> > properties in the same dependency. The sec
Am 19.01.19 um 17:58 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
> On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 15:54 +, Jonathon Kowalski wrote:
>> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1154 which is similar in
>> nature convinces me that systemd currently conflates two many
>> properties in the same dependency. The second bug in pa
On Sat, 2019-01-19 at 15:54 +, Jonathon Kowalski wrote:
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1154 which is similar in
> nature convinces me that systemd currently conflates two many
> properties in the same dependency. The second bug in particular would
> not happen if there was a versio
