Thanks for your exhaustive reply, Jonathon.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 04:02:47AM +0530, Jonathon Kowalski
wrote:
> [...]
> I think systemctl should do something similar to that, internally
> create a transient target unit through manager's bus API, add Wants=
> (which gives it implicit After=) on
So I have a comment on the issue, but it's been quite a lot of time since
then (and I happen to know more about systemd than I did back then). I
think this feature is just working around problems in units, and
introducing more complexity for little gain, in particular, while
StartUnits vectorized c
(Bringing up an older one.)
On 1/15/18 2:20 AM, 林自均 wrote:
> I've filed https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/7877 for this.
There's also accompanying RFE at [1]. I've looked into that and arrived
at design/implementation crossroads. I'd be happy for any ideas/feedback
on that GH issue.
Than
Hi Lennart,
I've filed https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/7877 for this. Thanks
for explain the reason of not document this in the first place.
John Lin
2018-01-13 0:41 GMT+08:00 Lennart Poettering :
> On Do, 11.01.18 17:52, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
>
> > At boot, bot
On Fr, 12.01.18 00:47, 林自均 (johnl...@gmail.com) wrote:
> How about adding an "--order" option to systemctl? With this option,
> systemctl will sort those units by ordering dependencies before submitting
> them. Although I personally wanted this to be the default behavior, I can
> understand compar
Am 12.01.2018 um 17:49 schrieb Lennart Poettering:
On Fr, 12.01.18 10:13, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:
Am 12.01.2018 um 08:12 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
come on - nobody cares about this bullshit bingo about what are j
On Do, 11.01.18 17:24, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Ordering dependencies are between jobs. To have any effect here
> systemd must have both start jobs queued concurrently. What is
> unexpected is that multiple services are apparently submitted as
> individual independent jobs,
On Do, 11.01.18 21:41, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:
>
> Am 11.01.2018 um 20:27 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov:
> > 11.01.2018 21:56, Reindl Harald пишет:
> > >
> > > it complete unexpected nonsense when i have two services which have a
> > > clear start ordering
> >
> > "services sta
On Do, 11.01.18 17:52, Uoti Urpala (uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi) wrote:
> At boot, both would be started as part of the same transaction (same
> would happen here if you started a third.service that depended on both
> first.service and second.service, then second.service would always
> wait). Here sec
eOn Do, 11.01.18 22:30, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 11.01.2018 22:04, Mantas Mikulėnas пишет:
> >
> > It could, if there was an API call to start multiple jobs at once.
> > (Actually, isn't there one already?...)
> >
>
> None I can find in sources.
There is none. There was
On Fr, 12.01.18 10:13, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote:
> Am 12.01.2018 um 08:12 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Reindl Harald
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > come on - nobody cares about this bullshit bingo about what are jobs,
> > > units
> > > and service
Am 12.01.2018 um 09:55 schrieb Michael Chapman:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
And why does it matter? If unit A can be started without unit B, why
does it matter in which order they are started? If unit A can *not* be
started without unit B, it must tell so using Requires or Req
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> come on - nobody cares about this bullshit bingo about what are jobs, units
> and services
>
I naively believe that understanding software design and how software
works is helpful when discussing said software. May be you are right
and it
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
12.01.2018 03:47, 林自均 пишет:
How about adding an "--order" option to systemctl? With this option,
systemctl will sort those units by ordering dependencies before submitting
them.
And why does it matter? If unit A can be started without unit B, why
d
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:51 AM, 林自均 wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
>
>> If unit A can be started without unit B, why does it matter in which order
>> they are started?
>
> Are you suggesting that After=/Before= must come with Requires= or similar?
What I say is - After/Before is only used when units are ac
On Do, 11.01.18 10:59, 林自均 (johnl...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have 2 service unist: first.service and second.service. I configured
> "After=first.service" in second.service. Both services are "Type=oneshot".
>
> If I execute:
>
> # systemctl start first.service second.service
>
> Th
I had a quick look at the systemd dbus API (which I assume is close to
what systemctl uses) and there are no easy way to queue multiple
"starts" into one job
There is a single StartUnit (+varient) method which can only take a
single unit. no queuing mechanism, way to create ajob without trigge
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 at 21:41:54 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> come on - nobody cares about this bullshit bingo about what are jobs, units
> and services
Please try to be polite when you are in a situation where you could be
perceived as representing a community. Responses like this to discussion
o
Am 12.01.2018 um 08:12 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
come on - nobody cares about this bullshit bingo about what are jobs, units
and services
I naively believe that understanding software design and how software
works is helpful when disc
Am 12.01.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov:
12.01.2018 03:47, 林自均 пишет:
How about adding an "--order" option to systemctl? With this option,
systemctl will sort those units by ordering dependencies before submitting
them.
And why does it matter? If unit A can be started without unit B,
Hi Andrei,
> If unit A can be started without unit B, why does it matter in which
order they are started?
Are you suggesting that After=/Before= must come with Requires= or similar?
I think this breaks the design of making ordering dependencies and
requirement dependencies orthogonal.
Take smbd.
12.01.2018 03:47, 林自均 пишет:
> How about adding an "--order" option to systemctl? With this option,
> systemctl will sort those units by ordering dependencies before submitting
> them.
And why does it matter? If unit A can be started without unit B, why
does it matter in which order they are star
How about adding an "--order" option to systemctl? With this option,
systemctl will sort those units by ordering dependencies before submitting
them. Although I personally wanted this to be the default behavior, I can
understand comparability matters.
John Lin
Reindl Harald 於 2018年1月12日 週五 上午4:5
Am 11.01.2018 um 20:27 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov:
11.01.2018 21:56, Reindl Harald пишет:
it complete unexpected nonsense when i have two services which have a
clear start ordering
"services start ordering" is fundamental misconception. Ordering exists
between jobs, not units. Unfortunately, s
11.01.2018 21:56, Reindl Harald пишет:
>
> it complete unexpected nonsense when i have two services which have a
> clear start ordering
"services start ordering" is fundamental misconception. Ordering exists
between jobs, not units. Unfortunately, systemd documentation does very
little to explai
Am 11.01.2018 um 20:30 schrieb Andrei Borzenkov:
11.01.2018 22:04, Mantas Mikulėnas пишет:
It could, if there was an API call to start multiple jobs at once.
(Actually, isn't there one already?...)
None I can find in sources (fdo is down for me currently)
who cares about fdo when it's hos
11.01.2018 22:04, Mantas Mikulėnas пишет:
>
> It could, if there was an API call to start multiple jobs at once.
> (Actually, isn't there one already?...)
>
None I can find in sources (fdo is down for me currently).
___
systemd-devel mailing list
syste
Am 11.01.2018 um 16:52 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 15:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 11.01.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
I'd guess this is due to systemctl starting each listed unit
independently rather than as a single transaction. Thus, the second
version first starts
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 20:11 Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 15:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > Am 11.01.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
> > > I'd guess this is due to systemctl starting each listed unit
> > > independently rather than as a single transaction. Thus, the second
> >
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 15:34 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 11.01.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
> > I'd guess this is due to systemctl starting each listed unit
> > independently rather than as a single transaction. Thus, the second
> > version first starts second.service without first.servic
Am 11.01.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 10:59 +, 林自均 wrote:
I have 2 service unist: first.service and second.service. I
configured "After=first.service" in second.service. Both services are
"Type=oneshot".
If I execute:
# systemctl start first.service second.ser
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 10:59 +, 林自均 wrote:
> I have 2 service unist: first.service and second.service. I
> configured "After=first.service" in second.service. Both services are
> "Type=oneshot".
>
> If I execute:
>
> # systemctl start first.service second.service
>
> The ordering dependency w
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:59 PM, 林自均 wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have 2 service unist: first.service and second.service. I configured
> "After=first.service" in second.service. Both services are "Type=oneshot".
>
> If I execute:
>
> # systemctl start first.service second.service
>
> The ordering depe
Hi folks,
I have 2 service unist: first.service and second.service. I configured
"After=first.service" in second.service. Both services are "Type=oneshot".
If I execute:
# systemctl start first.service second.service
The ordering dependency will work, i.e. second.service will start after
first.
34 matches
Mail list logo