On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 10:24 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Kai Krakow <hurikha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The point is: Let's just find out why the "intuitive" way to solve the OPs > > problem doesn't work out and find the right solution. Let's face it: Trying > > to use targets as sysvinit runlevels equivalent is obviously not the working > > way although it looks promising and intuitive at first > > sysinit.target and basic.target are exact equivalent of sysvinit > runlevels - they are hard serialization points between groups of > services so that systemd will not proceed with next group until all > services in previous group are started. The difference is that these
No, they are not hard serialization points. As I already mentioned in another part of this thread, it's perfectly possible for a service pulled in by multi-user.target to run before basic.target completes. The only reason that's not very typical is that most services use DefaultDependencies=yes unless they're specifically designed for early boot. But if a service has been written with DefaultDependencies=no (for example because it _could_ be a dependency of some other early-boot service in certain specific configurations) then it's quite normal for it to start before basic.target, even if the service is only part of multi-user.target. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
