On 2015-05-06 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 06.05.15 19:53, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > I still think that being able to define and start group of units > > as one > > unit (pun unintended) is better in the long run. > > > > This really far exceeds original scope of systemd-run which was > > "quickly start something under systemd supervision". When we have > > complex set of units with interdependency either systemd-run is the > > wrong tool for it or it should do it right, not paper over. > > Hmm, you actually have a point, and we already *do* support queuing > groups of units, and that should suffice for this usecase, so that we > don't need to allow definiton of reverse deps. > > This is actually already used for the time-based systemd-run stuff, > where we create both a transient timer and a transient service unit > and then start the timer unit. > > Ivan, what you are trying to do hence should already work just fine > in > the lower level apis, using the "auxiliary" list of units that the > StartTransientUnt() bus call takes. systemd-run doesn't generically > open this up yet though (and i dont know how it could do so nicely).
Yeah, auxiliary units could help here, though they suffer from the same kind of problem: either auxiliary units are read from message and created before the main one, or vice versa. The problems are the same as with two consecutive StartTransientUnit calls. -- Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx /
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
