On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:52:05AM +0000, Iain Lane wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 09:55:47PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > Hello Iain, all,
> > Iain Lane [2018-02-15 18:48 +0000]: > > > There's a patch attached here which fixes the problem for me. I'm not > > > sure if there's a better way to do this - basically it starts > > > network-online.target and waits for it to become active, with a timeout. > > > Review appreciated. > > I wouldn't pick on any of these: network-online.target is a sloppily defined > > shim for SysV init backwards compatibility, and may not ever get started (in > > fact, that's the goal ☺); and the container might not use networkd, so I > > wouldn't use s-n-wait-online either. I think querying > Interesting. I thought that it was the systemd way to say 'I am online > now' --- i.e. nm-online or systemd-networkd-wait-online, which is the > question I wanted to get a positive answer to. I can see that the SysV > implementation isn't great, but it's not clear to me that it was ill > defined for this case. > > [ -n "$(ip route show to 0/0)" ] > This is better though, and works too. Please take a look at the attached > patch. Thanks! :-) Actually no, this is racy, because the route comes up before DNS resolution is in place. It's also not forwards-compatible with ipv6-only deploys. I think the network-online.target is the better thing to key on. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
