On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:35:35PM -0000, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Steve Langasek [2015-04-07 14:22 -0000]:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this. We absolutely did block on our network
> > interfaces when using upstart; just with a 2 minute timeout for any
> > misconfigured interfaces.
> Right, but that should only be done by services which depend on
> network-online.target IMHO, *not* network.target. The former is done
> by ifup-wait-all-auto.service. I. e. we don't need to block services
> which merely want network.target on all interfaces to be up.
> That's at least the intention. Did I misunderstand you?
I agree with the code change. I'm just questioning the "we didn't do this
with upstart" claim - upstart doesn't have any equivalent to
network.target, only network-online.target.
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:35:35PM -0000, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Steve Langasek [2015-04-07 14:22 -0000]:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by this. We absolutely did block on our network
> > interfaces when using upstart; just with a 2 minute timeout for any
> > misconfigured interfaces.
> Right, but that should only be done by services which depend on online. target IMHO, *not* network.target. The former is done all-auto. service. I. e. we don't need to block services
> network-
> by ifup-wait-
> which merely want network.target on all interfaces to be up.
> That's at least the intention. Did I misunderstand you?
I agree with the code change. I'm just questioning the "we didn't do this online. target.
with upstart" claim - upstart doesn't have any equivalent to
network.target, only network-