<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body><a class="email" href="mailto:calestyo@scientia.net" title="Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>"> Christoph Anton Mitterer</a> changed <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - RFE: please introduce more special targets for facilities like entropy, or netfilter rules" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80169">bug 80169</a> <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8"> <tr> <th>What</th> <th>Removed</th> <th>Added</th> </tr> <tr> <td style="text-align:right;">Status</td> <td>RESOLVED </td> <td>REOPENED </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="text-align:right;">Resolution</td> <td>INVALID </td> <td>--- </td> </tr></table> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - RFE: please introduce more special targets for facilities like entropy, or netfilter rules" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80169#c12">Comment # 12</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - RFE: please introduce more special targets for facilities like entropy, or netfilter rules" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80169">bug 80169</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:calestyo@scientia.net" title="Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>"> Christoph Anton Mitterer</a> <pre>I'm not really happy with closing that bug before discussion has reached an end or even consensus... o.O >After=network.target means exactly what it seems to mean. >So network-pre.target and network.target cover pretty much all common cases. Well then why would you need "network-pre.target" if you can just say Before=network.target ... That's what I've meant... the concept of having and "*-pre" or "*-post" targets or units is IMHO quite ugly and more sysvinit style. And that applies to other ordering names as well,... like in Debian we've had cryptsetup and cryptsetup-early sysv-init scripts... the -early version simply was the same than the other just running before MD or LVM (forgot which)... It is a mess, never worked really well. That's what I've said... I think design-wise unit names shouldn't contain qualifiers that order them. >No, no, no. Yes, yes, yes :P >Individual services should be able to listen (securely) >at any point in time. What do you mean with this? >Teaching them about network configuration stages is very wrong. I haven't said we should teach them about network configuration or how they listen to addresses... I said we should teach them: "If you write a unit file for something that does networking,... then include Requires=network-secured.target After=network-secured.target cause this will make sure that any system services that secure networking are already running. And this guidelines or call it BCP doesn't change at all how some software would be written... at most it changes how the sysadmin configures his systems,... now giving him some easy way to control that services are not even started if securing the network failed... or even then started (as I've described). >Great. They can run Before=network-pre.target. >I think that this shows why existing targets are sufficient. Well I don't really agree here.... For all the reasons laid out in my previous comment, I think network-pre.target is too genetically named and vaguely defined. All kinds of stuff will sooner or later use to hook on to network-pre...and services/daemons will try to not use it, because these targets can more or less pull anything which the service may not need/want at all.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>