On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 06:13:17PM +0200, Uoti Urpala wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 15:19 +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > > > Requires=xyz.service > > > > > > produces no complaint and starts the service even if there is no > > > xyz.service > > > Is this the normal behavior or can I configure systemd to throw an error > > > in this case? > > > > The docs say you can get this behavior if you also have After=xyz.service. > > (Not entirely sure why.) > > No when there IS NOT an "After=xyz.service". > > Without "After=", there is no ordering dependency - it just tells that > anything starting this unit will effectively order the start of the > other as well. Without ordering, this unit can be the one to start > first. If the other one fails to actually start later, that doesn't > make systemd go back to stop this one (note that this is consistent > with ordering dependencies - if a depended-on service fails later > during runtime, that does not automatically force a stop of already > running depending services). I guess this logic extends to failures of > the "does not exist at all" type where there was never a chance of > successfully starting the unit.
Sounds like a bug. I'd expect the transaction to fail if the Required unit cannot be found. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
