On 26-05-13 15:11, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Samstag, 25. Mai 2013, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> For example: after some intense studying, I now fully understand why
>> declaring a new upstart job C that depends on existing jobs A and B
>> ("start on job-a-did-its-thing AND job-b-did-its-thing") may prevent the
>> start of job A (cf
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/upstart/+bug/964207). However, I
>> still consider it confusing and at least questionable design that adding a
>> new job can prevent an existing job from starting even though they do not
>> conflict in any way.
>
> WHAT?!? if that's true then I for sure know what I won't let near my systems!
> That's rather horrible. Thanks for the info!
Reading the bug, what Nikolaus fails to mention is that the way the
event handling happens, this really becomes a _circular_ dependency
unless the --no-wait option is specified (IIUC)
--
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space.
If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you
will not go to space today.
-- http://xkcd.com/1133/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51a28946.9090...@debian.org
