Re: Requires and After

[Olaf van der Spek <ml@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jérémy Rosen <jeremy.rosen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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)

According to the docs that one doesn't depend on ordering. See how
complicated this is? ;)

>  If one of the other units fails to activate, and an ordering dependency After= on the failing unit is set, this unit will not be started.

> 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.

IMO docs are not a solution, especially long-term.

Greetings,

Olaf
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel