On Tue, 07.09.10 13:18, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) said:
> > > It reads confusingly, in that if sysinit is 'Before' emergency, the
> > > implication would be that if you enable emergency mode, sysinit would be
> > > started before
Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) said:
> > It reads confusingly, in that if sysinit is 'Before' emergency, the
> > implication would be that if you enable emergency mode, sysinit would be
> > started before it. It isn't, as the dependency isn't there.
>
> sysinit.target has a Conflicts
On Tue, 07.09.10 12:41, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) said:
> > And I hope this is not too confusing...
>
> It reads confusingly, in that if sysinit is 'Before' emergency, the
> implication would be that if you enable emergency mode,
Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) said:
> And I hope this is not too confusing...
It reads confusingly, in that if sysinit is 'Before' emergency, the
implication would be that if you enable emergency mode, sysinit would be
started before it. It isn't, as the dependency isn't there.
Two
On Tue, 07.09.10 12:09, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) said:
> > In systemd, "emergency" is little more than an equivalent to
> > init=/bin/sh on the kernel command like. i.e. you get a shell
>
> Not as it's currently configured. sysi
Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) said:
> In systemd, "emergency" is little more than an equivalent to
> init=/bin/sh on the kernel command like. i.e. you get a shell
Not as it's currently configured. sysinit.service has
'Before' on it. Is that not intentional?
Bill
___
On Fri, 03.09.10 15:30, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Is there any real, useful, reason to define both of these? In RH/Fedora, we
> don't support a distinction, and haven't since switching away from sysvinit.
> As they're set up now in systemd, they're identical except for some str
Is there any real, useful, reason to define both of these? In RH/Fedora, we
don't support a distinction, and haven't since switching away from sysvinit.
As they're set up now in systemd, they're identical except for some string
output, and do not have any different handling in the daemon itself asi
