On Mo, 08.01.18 16:07, Michal Koutný (mkou...@suse.com) wrote: > Hello, > I'd like to ask your opinion on the following situation. > > B.service exposes its API through D-Bus. A.service uses this API and > thus it has a dependency on B.service. This is implicit though -- and > we're happy we can rely on D-Bus activation and needn't to list all > dependencies explicitly. > > As it comes, A.service needs B.service for proper termination. During > the shutdown transaction there is unspecified ordering of the two (since > the dependency is implicit only) and B.service is stopped before > A.service.
If you need it for proper termination you should declare the dep really. My general recommendation would be though to write daemons in a fashion that they do not require any other daemons to shut down in an orderly fashion. It's a matter of general robustness I guess: if your daemon is written in a way that it basically can die abruptly any time without leaving unclean state around then this also means that shutting it down always works and has no dependencies. That said, I am full aware that it might not be possible to write all daemons in this fashion... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
