Re: Requires and After

[Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am 02.01.19 um 05:22 schrieb James Feeney:
> On 1/1/19 8:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> "After" is a soft dependency, if that unit isn't enabled or don#t exist
>> at all it don't matter
>>
>> "Requires" is a hard dependency and it makes no sense not imply ordering
> 
> And then, what do you mean by "soft dependency" and "hard dependency"?  It sounds like you are calling an ordering dependency "soft" and an activation dependency "hard".
> 
> I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "makes no sense not imply ordering".  Do you mean "to not imply ordering makes no sense"?  In which case, are you saying that "an activation dependency must imply an ordering"?  That would not be true.  Activating a unit does not automatically imply or require that that unit be activated or deactivated in any particular order relative to any other unit.

what do you not understand?

when i say "Requires=b.service" common sense says i mean *it is
required* and so the "After=b.service" should not be needed because it's
pretty obvious when i REQUIRE something that it should be there when i
get started


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