Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Tom H <tomh0665@×××××.com>
To: Gentoo User <gentoo-user@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [~amd64] NFS server broken again :(
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:01:52
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [~amd64] NFS server broken again :( by Rich Freeman
1 On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
2 > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tom H <tomh0665@×××××.com> wrote:
5 >> Is "After" really necessary as an option? I've never come across a
6 >> service that uses "After" without a "Requires" or a Wants" but I've
7 >> never taken the time to look.
8 >
9 > Hmm, I found After more common that Wants, but maybe I only look at
10 > units that have problems. :)
12 LOL. Which supports the thesis that "After" might not be a useful
13 setting within a service unit. But it's just occured to me that target
14 units use "After" without "Requires" or "Wants", for example
15 has "".
18 > I think the intent is to handle optional dependencies, but in practice
19 > I don't know that it works well. It would almost be better to have
20 > some kind of cluster config file that specifies all the actual
21 > dependencies (possibly including cross-host) and have it spit out all
22 > the unit dependencies automatically. That is a bit much to ask for
23 > now, and probably a bit much for somebody who just wants their laptop
24 > to launch kde after all their mounts are ready.
26 Optional dependencies are handled by "Wants" like openrc's "use".
28 IIUC you're referring to a BSD-like rc daemon config file. WOuldn't
29 that have to be maintained by a sysadmin rather than by a package
30 maintainer?
33 > Specifying After vs Wants separately does make sense. Dependency
34 > doesn't have to imply sequential.
36 Do you have an example of a service that uses "After=" but doesn't
37 need a "Requires=" or a "Wants="? I'm either being unimaginative or
38 plain dumb, but I can't think of any. I wonder whether, if Lennart and
39 co removed "After=" from service units and turned "Requires=" into the
40 equivakent of the current "Requires=" and "After=" setup, someone
41 would raise a storm over the change because it would've broken
42 something.


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [~amd64] NFS server broken again :( Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [~amd64] NFS server broken again :( "Jc García" <jyo.garcia@×××××.com>