Re: Requires and After

[Olaf van der Spek <ml@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:23 AM James Feeney <james@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What Reindl Harald was saying was that "Requires" should have an
> > implicit "After" because it wouldn't make sense for a.service to
> > require b.service but to start before b.service.
>
> I understand that Reindl has said that.  But, just because Reindl does not have a use case in which a.service requires b.service *and* also starts before b.service, is no reason to prohibit other people from configuring such a use case.  That would be the purview of religious zealots and political fundamentalists.
>
> Reindl might be uncomfortable with other people being "insane" and acting with "wild and crazy abandon", but, ... well, it's a big world out there.
>
> In my case, for instance, I have a service unit which I use, in combination, to configure hot-plug network interfaces.  The service unit makes use of a target unit to sequence stages in the configuration process.  This service unit Requires the target unit *and* must be run *Before* the target unit.
>
> With accumulated experience, people will learn new ways to use their tools.  It's just going to take time.

Use or abuse?
I don't know the details, are you sure your way is the best way to use
dependencies for your case?


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