|
The short answer is that Requires without after makes little sense,
since you can't reliably know if your dependency is here without it (if it fails at startup, you might or might not be started, depending on the startup order systemd chooses) however, for backward compatibility reasons, those two will most likely stay separate. I think a bigger warning in the docs that those two should usually be used together would be welcomed. Cheers Jeremy On 30/12/2018 12:05, Olaf van der Spek
wrote:
Hi, Evverx suggested I ask here @ https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/11284 It's about Requires and After. I think a unit in Requires should imply that unit in After too, otherwise the requirement isn't really met. Is there a use case for Requires but not After? If not, would it make sense to change semantics to have Requires imply After? Requires and After are a common source of confusion: https://serverfault.com/questions/812584/in-systemd-whats-the-difference-between-after-and-requires https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/388586/systemd-requires-vs-wants --
|
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
