From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A179138A1B for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 03:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83A87E0935; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 03:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E5F0E0867 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 03:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l4so298901lbv.24 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:18:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=b1sp+qN+6drUHcVyQfi64GDTbncikiMgvTRE6EFjTN4=; b=bpJjG3f1NJ0EsoYvQk3qDLMhsYIHehFtX+GX0dhZpmdkkV1HlHVftv7+HXp9iaQWc7 U7K44zqnApkLcnSFJR1UL8qzlLsWj6twmZ5imOnPppxZ3GyqL/n9TtjiWfBq0diM7JN8 qcbQzQDDmTOSxayBKHbp0GZFnQLWr8IF9SbIjLPyKGGur+5lwcAqzF1MpCecULPws2Dw R/lXTBxpwgTafcxjxp7kiMH7Z4KZs+CfMQqaQsCn3hwYPNIDGXgpYL8BD5pmJDzGxc92 VzRXckk76M+lksX4QDlpLI2j18ZflrlzQYsscdQ0r+AMwoiCBH8lRdeu6QsuinBVLmZ0 af3A== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.8.100 with SMTP id q4mr30025862laa.48.1414811889386; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.77.166 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:18:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:18:09 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [~amd64] NFS server broken again :( From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jc_Garc=C3=ADa?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 318d0500-f906-479c-8fbb-9d07f8ba98b4 X-Archives-Hash: f24e1394f1afed90575e5cd744eff2b3 2014-10-31 17:01 GMT-06:00 Tom H : > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Tom H wrote: > > >>> Is "After" really necessary as an option? I've never come across a >>> service that uses "After" without a "Requires" or a Wants" but I've >>> never taken the time to look. >> >> Hmm, I found After more common that Wants, but maybe I only look at >> units that have problems. :) > > LOL. Which supports the thesis that "After" might not be a useful > setting within a service unit. But it's just occured to me that target > units use "After" without "Requires" or "Wants", for example > network-online.target has "After=network.target". > I think the manuals are pretty clear about the working of these. >From the systemd.unit manual: """ .... Requires= .... If a unit foo.service requires a unit bar.service as configured with Requires= and no ordering is configured with After= or Before=, then both units will be started simultaneously and without any delay between them if foo.service is activated. Before,After= ... Note that this setting is independent of and orthogonal to the requirement dependencies as configured by Requires=. .... If two units have no ordering dependencies between them, they are shut down or started up simultaneously, and no ordering takes place. """ >From sytemd.service manual """ Unless DefaultDependencies= is set to false, service units will implicitly have dependencies of type Requires= and After= on basic.target as well as dependencies of type Conflicts= and Before= on shutdown.target. These ensure that normal service units pull in basic system initialization, and are terminated cleanly prior to system shutdown. """ I think it's about flexibility and the fact that systemd uses parallelization at boot, when having these options makes sense