Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis: > At first I was a little confused about why we would ever want to use a > one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation snippet, but after > reviewing the account-shepherd-service, I think I understand. It seems > that we make it a one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation > snippet so that we can take advantage of shepherd's service dependency > management. In the case of account-shepherd-service, it looks like we > made it a shepherd service to ensure that it would run after > 'file-systems' is up. This makes sense, since it could be a little > awkward to try to ensure proper execution order by extending the > activation service, and even if we did that, it would duplicate the > dependency management logic that shepherd gives us already.
Yes, that’s exactly the reason. The ‘user-homes’ service was introduced to fix a bug whereby, if you were using a separate /home, home directories would be created at the wrong time—i.e., before the real /home was mounted. Ludo’.
