Re: [systemd-devel] Antw: [EXT] Re: Q: Difference between AssertPathExists and ConditionPathExists?
On 17.03.2022 14:15, Ulrich Windl wrote: Andrei Borzenkov schrieb am 17.03.2022 um 12:08 in > Nachricht > : >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:32 PM Ulrich Windl >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> When reading the manual page systemd.unit(5), I'm not quite sure what the >> difference between AssertPathExists and ConditionPathExists is: >>> >>> (Condition) >>> If the specified absolute path name does not exist, the condition will fail. >>> >>> Vs. >>> >>> (Assert) >>> However, unlike the conditions settings, any assertion setting that is not >> met results >>> in failure of the start job it was triggered by. >>> >>> What does that mean effectively? >>> >> >> Assert makes the start job fail, which triggers any followup failure >> processing (like failure of other units Requiring this one). Condition >> silently skips starting of this unit but proceeds normally with >> starting dependent units. > > OK, ist that "skip" actually a "skip once (and silently) for now", or is it > more like a "delay until no longer true"? > Start job is completed without doing anything, there is no delay.
[systemd-devel] Antw: [EXT] Re: Q: Difference between AssertPathExists and ConditionPathExists?
>>> Andrei Borzenkov schrieb am 17.03.2022 um 12:08 in Nachricht : > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:32 PM Ulrich Windl > wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> When reading the manual page systemd.unit(5), I'm not quite sure what the > difference between AssertPathExists and ConditionPathExists is: >> >> (Condition) >> If the specified absolute path name does not exist, the condition will fail. >> >> Vs. >> >> (Assert) >> However, unlike the conditions settings, any assertion setting that is not > met results >> in failure of the start job it was triggered by. >> >> What does that mean effectively? >> > > Assert makes the start job fail, which triggers any followup failure > processing (like failure of other units Requiring this one). Condition > silently skips starting of this unit but proceeds normally with > starting dependent units. OK, ist that "skip" actually a "skip once (and silently) for now", or is it more like a "delay until no longer true"? Regards, Ulrich
