It's not about saving a line in the unit file, it's about avoiding errors on the most common caseIn my opinion, I don't think the extra inconsistency we get from this is worth it. It literally only saves one line in a unit file. i.e if A Requires B, you would expect failures of B to prevent A from starting. * This is not the case if B is (randomly) scheduled after A. * This is the case if B is (randomly) scheduled before A. This is the race the implicit After= would prevent. That being said... the fact that Requires influences both startup and restart/shutdown makes things a bit more complicated... From reading the documentation it seems that Requires without After is equivalent to PartOf and thus is suspicious (if you want PartOf, you should use PartOf, if you want Requires, the you should also use After) This means that there are cases to be checked for but I still globally think that Requires without After is suspicious, and that an implicit order would make sense... but that's just my opinion and I am still a bit confused about the fine-details of what Requires does. my understanding is Requires = Wants + Requisite + PartOf is that correct ? Regards Jérémy _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel --
|
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
