From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 913511FF16F for ; 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 To: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" 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