[systemd-devel] Still confused with socket activation

[Benjamin Berg]

On Thu, 2021-02-04 at 22:16 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 03.02.2021 22:25, Benjamin Berg пишет:
> > Requires= actually has the difference that the unit must become
> > part of
> > the transaction (if it is not active already). So you get a hard
> > failure and appropriate logging if the unit cannot be added to the
> > transaction for some reason.
> > 
> 
> Oh, I said "documented" :) systemd documentation does not even define
> what "transaction" is. You really need to know low level implementation
> details to use it in this way.
> 
> But thank you, I missed this subtlety. Of course another reason could be
> stop behavior.

Oh, good point! I really had not been considering the implication on
stop behaviour. :)

Benjamin

> > > Care to show more complete example and explain why Wants does not
> > > work in this case?
> > 
> > Wants= would work fine. I think it boils down to whether you find
> > the
> > extra assertions useful. The Requires= documentation actually
> > suggests
> > using Wants= exactly to avoid this.
> > 
> > Benjamin
> > 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20210205/a8ab7cdc/attachment.sig>