From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 913511FF16F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:11:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7B97A10658;
Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:11:15 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 11:10:42 +0100
From: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <gpfamnyubnsvoljbzm4it6wb4pxmylsnrhnzurinqhbttiptjn@qia6nbyktcbq>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.030 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
Validity was blocked. See
https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
information.
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [multi-user.target, network-pre.target, network-online.target,
network.target]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH installer 2/5] fix #5579: first-boot:
add initial service packaging
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Thanks for chiming in!
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:49:19AM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 15.11.24 um 10:34 schrieb Christoph Heiss:
> > [..]
> > Should it be an enum then? I.e. only allowing certain values such as
> > - network-pre.target
> > - network.target
> > - network-online.target
> > - multi-user.target
>
> Yeah, I would not make it generic, just the two or three most common
> orderings, we can then extend it on potential future user demand.
Alright, that was my thought here too. A slight abstraction layer will
make things lot less confusing for users.
>
> I think before network, post network and finished boot, i.e. multi-user
> target seem enough for now.
Ack!
> [..]
> > Not sure if we could just use multi-user.target as a default target, but
> > systemd *should* pull it in and run it in the right ordering too with
> > e.g. {Before,Wants}=network-pre.target ?
>
> Isn't the WantedBy is more for defining the target the unit itself will
> be part of, or? Adapting that might indeed make sense, but a bit to long
> ago that I looked into systemd unit ordering/dependency semantics more
> closely.
>
Yeah, about the meaning AFAIU myself. I'll test with multi-user.target,
should then work in any case I think. But since we will control the
possible ordering targets anyway, it's not a big problem really after
all.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel