On Fri, 31.10.14 16:13, Michal Schmidt (mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On 10/31/2014 03:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:01:12 +0100 > > Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> So the problem appears to be that gssproxy.service been ordered before > >> remote-fs-pre.target. That target is ordered before > >> basic.target. However gssproxy.service also is ordered after > >> basic.target (simply because all services by default are ordered > >> before basic.target, unless they explicitly specify > >> DefaultDependencies=no), hence there's an ordering cycle. > >> > >> Most likely some NFS maintainers tried to move gss-proxy.service into > >> the early boot, and didn't set DefaultDependencies=no. > >> > >> That said, services running in early boot must be written in a > >> specific style (i.e. not assume /var to be around, and suchlike), I > >> do wonder if gssproxy is ready for that. > >> > >> Anyway, long story short: file a bug against the gssproxy package. > > > > I don't think this explains all the problems folks are having with > > systemd-217. > > I wonder if the new ordering dependency between > systemd-journal-flush.service and systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service > (added in 74055aa76 "journalctl: add new --flush command and make use > of it in systemd-journal-flush.service") participates in the ordering > cycles. Ahh, indeed. It moves remote-fs.target into the early-boot where it doesn't belong. My fault. Will drop the remote-fs.target dep from the flush service. Thanks for tracking this down. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
