On 12/1/21 07:20, Brian Hutchinson wrote:
...
In .system file I tried all I know to ensure the required interfaces were
created before starting ptp4l in attempt to give bonding enough time to finish
but binding to things like sys-subsystem-net-devices-bond1.device wasn't enough.
Is it also pos
On 12/1/21 13:27, Brian Hutchinson wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any way for me to "add
targets" to this problem to solve it ...
Well, of course, that's a problem. Maybe you can take the construction step by
step.
First, do you have *five* different unit files, the
On 12/2/21 08:41, Brian Hutchinson wrote:
Yup, I'm using systemd-networkd ... I think I have to in order to leverage
network-online.target etc., and set up my network (bonding in this case) with
.netdev and .network files in /etc/systemd/network.
You don't "have" to do anything. It is a choi
I thought perhaps to file this as a bug report, since the shortcomings are so
glaring, and the three proposed fixes - and documentation updates - are so
specific. But instead, maybe some discussion would be appropriate. I want to
address three issues and corresponding fixes: 1) adding a speci
On 1/2/19 3:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> it's
> pretty obvious when i REQUIRE something that it should be there when i
> get started
Not only is it not "obvious" that "something should be there", it is not true.
You are confusing "Requires=" and "Requisite=".
Some developers and some users are
On 1/2/19 12:50 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Activation by itself guarantees basically nothing.
"Activation" guarantees activation. Activating, for instance, a service unit
is quite a bit more significant than "nothing".
>> Because, as far as I know, "Requisite=" is completely broken in syste
On 1/2/19 5:38 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> Some developers and some users are not native English speakers. In
>> some cases, systemd terminology can be ... less than optimal, while,
>> in other situations, users will simply misunderstand the conventional
>> meaning of words.
> You might not like how "Requ
From the point of view of a systemd user, not a developer, and at the same time,
while following discussions of proper meaning and operation of systemd
dependencies, it appears to me that there is confusion with respect to the
precise meaning of dependency terms used in the documentation. Here is
> It's about Requires and After. I think a unit in Requires should imply
> that unit in After too, otherwise the requirement isn't really met.
> Is there a use case for Requires but not After?
Olaf, previously, on GitHub, you had said:
>> I think I understand Requires and After ...
and, I would
On 1/1/19 8:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> "After" is a soft dependency, if that unit isn't enabled or don#t exist
> at all it don't matter
>
> "Requires" is a hard dependency and it makes no sense not imply ordering
And then, what do you mean by "soft dependency" and "hard dependency"? It
sound
I am chasing a bug in the systemd response to the initiation of an ethernet
interface "device" unit by the kernel. When an ethernet interface "device"
unit is initiated by the kernel, systemd will Start an associated service unit
in response, but will subsquently "Enqueue" that same already run
On Thu, 2025-02-13 at 22:07 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mo, 10.02.25 19:09, James Feeney (ja...@nurealm.net) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > systemd[1]: Got message type=method_call sender=n/a
> > destination=org.freedesktop.systemd1 path=/org/freedesk
12 matches
Mail list logo
