>>> Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> schrieb am 07.03.2022 um 14:08 in Nachricht <YiYDwn3RqG621LZ4@gardel-login>: > On Mo, 07.03.22 12:24, Ulrich Windl (ulrich.wi...@rz.uni‑regensburg.de) wrote: > >> Thanks for that. The amazing things are that "systemd.analyze verify" finds
> no >> problem and "enable" virtually succeeds, too: > > Because there is no problem really: systemd allows you to define your > targets as you like, and we generally focus on a model where you can > extend stuff without requiring it to be installed. i.e. we want to > allow lose coupling, where stuff can be ordered against other stuff, > or be pulled in by other stuff without requiring that the other stuff > to be hard installed. Thus you can declare that you want to be pulled > in by a target that doesn't exist, and that's *not* considered an > issue, because it might just mean that you haven't installed the > package that defines it. > > Example: if you install mysql and apache, then there's a good reason > you want that mysql runs before apache, so that the web apps you run > on apache can access mysql. Still it should be totally OK to install > one without the other, and it's not a bug thus if one refers to the > other in its unit files, even if the other thing is not installed. Hi! Well, I think it is more likely that the user wants to refer to an existing target rather than refering to a future target. Likewise verify complains about a missing manual page (Documentation) and about missing executables. Command ... is not executable: No such file or directory ...: man ... command failed with code 16 To be consistent, verify should also complain about missing targets referred to. (The manual page and executable could be added at some later time, too) Regards, Ulrich > > Lennart > > ‑‑ > Lennart Poettering, Berlin
