On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:23 AM James Feeney <ja...@nurealm.net> wrote: > > What Reindl Harald was saying was that "Requires" should have an > > implicit "After" because it wouldn't make sense for a.service to > > require b.service but to start before b.service. > > I understand that Reindl has said that. But, just because Reindl does not > have a use case in which a.service requires b.service *and* also starts > before b.service, is no reason to prohibit other people from configuring such > a use case. That would be the purview of religious zealots and political > fundamentalists. > > Reindl might be uncomfortable with other people being "insane" and acting > with "wild and crazy abandon", but, ... well, it's a big world out there. > > In my case, for instance, I have a service unit which I use, in combination, > to configure hot-plug network interfaces. The service unit makes use of a > target unit to sequence stages in the configuration process. This service > unit Requires the target unit *and* must be run *Before* the target unit. > > With accumulated experience, people will learn new ways to use their tools. > It's just going to take time.
Use or abuse? I don't know the details, are you sure your way is the best way to use dependencies for your case? -- Olaf _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
