Re: [systemd-devel] Factoring out initctl support

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:28:34 +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On 04/15/2016 11:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> On 04/15/2016 10:47 PM, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> Including the built results of systemd-initctl into your .deb packet is >> not a solution? Making that an extra package causes

[systemd-devel] systemctl status etc attempts to load unit

I was grown to believe that I need "systemctl daemon-reload" to make systemd recognize new units, but apparently it is no more the case. Just dropping unit definition in standard place and running "systemctl status new-unit" is enough to trigger systemd into loading it. It apparently is not

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

Your answer was correct(and of course acceptable) in the way it helped me understand what the solution was. The stanza on Mantas mail: "systemd has no way to know that dispatcher is doing a background job by the time it finishes starting up" was a full explanation of the whole parallel

Re: [systemd-devel] Factoring out initctl support

Hi Michael, On 04/15/2016 11:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 04/15/2016 10:47 PM, Michael Biebl wrote: > Including the built results of systemd-initctl into your .deb packet is > not a solution? Making that an extra package causes too much trouble, I > totally agree. Did you further think about

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 26.04.2016 um 16:37 schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas: > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:14 PM, george Karakou >> > wrote: >> >> It's actually

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

2016-04-26 16:49 GMT+02:00 george Karakou : > You were really close, the correct answer is provided by mantas. Anyway > driven from your thought i moved the script's execution to NetworkManager > and i am now at the point i wanted. Though i have added 2 and something >

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

You were really close, the correct answer is provided by mantas. Anyway driven from your thought i moved the script's execution to NetworkManager and i am now at the point i wanted. Though i have added 2 and something minutes to my startup process time. Thanks. Ordering

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

Am 26.04.2016 um 16:37 schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas: On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:14 PM, george Karakou > wrote: It's actually NetworkManager-dispatcher whose actual job is -if i am not mistaken- to run some scripts after

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:14 PM, george Karakou wrote: > It's actually NetworkManager-dispatcher whose actual job is -if i am not > mistaken- to run some scripts after NetworkManager main process. Though i > have configured NetworkManager-wait-online too but systemd's

Re: [systemd-devel] about systemd-system-update-generator

On Tue, 26.04.16 19:05, samyan...@gmail.com (samyan...@gmail.com) wrote: > Hi: > The systemd-system-update-generator use the argv[2],but it runs very > early at boot. How to transfer the three parameters to it? I am > trying implement the offline update by the advice of systemd. Not sure I

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

Ordering after the dispatcher won't help. The dispatcher is not part of the initial transaction (e.g. pulled in by multi-user.target.wants). 2016-04-26 14:14 GMT+02:00 george Karakou : > It's actually NetworkManager-dispatcher whose actual job is -if i am not >

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

It's actually NetworkManager-dispatcher whose actual job is -if i am not mistaken- to run some scripts after NetworkManager main process. Though i have configured NetworkManager-wait-online too but systemd's parallelizazion is unbeatable: services are started in parallel and i see other

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

Well, this sounds like your service should have some equivalent to NetworkManager's or systemd-networkd's "wait-until-online" tools. For example, there's NetworkManager-wait-online.service which blocks until NM has configured at least one connection fully, so other services can order against it

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

On 04/26/2016 09:35 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM, george Karakou wrote: Hi list, how are you all? I hope everyone is doing well. I have a long starting unit that executes some(many actually) scripts and with the parallel nature of

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM, george Karakou wrote: > Hi list, how are you all? I hope everyone is doing well. > I have a long starting unit that executes some(many actually) scripts and > with the parallel nature of systemd init process it doesn't fully start up >

Re: [systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:27 AM, george Karakou wrote: > Hi list, how are you all? I hope everyone is doing well. > I have a long starting unit that executes some(many actually) scripts and > with the parallel nature of systemd init process it doesn't fully start up >

[systemd-devel] Require a systemd.unit to finish completely before other services(units) are started

Hi list, how are you all? I hope everyone is doing well. I have a long starting unit that executes some(many actually) scripts and with the parallel nature of systemd init process it doesn't fully start up before some other units i have starting after it. Meaning "After=" directives in [Unit]