Hi Gábor, Gábor Boskovits <boskov...@gmail.com> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. ápr. 30., K, 16:24): > >> 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. >> >> > This raises the question, if we are willing to convert some more activation > snippets to one-shot services. Are there any candidates for that? Good question, maybe things like ssh-keygen. Or maybe we could turn all the service activation snippets into one-shot services that the service depends on. However, since the Shepherd 0.6.0 UI doesn’t allow users to distinguish between one-shot and normal services, it’s probably a good idea to not do this yet. Otherwise “herd status” would list loads of stopped services, which could be confusing. I think we should first adjust the Shepherd UI. Ludo’.
