Summary: | sys-apps/openrc: dependency ordering fails when affected init script is not added to the runlevel | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Hosted Projects | Reporter: | Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) (RETIRED) <polynomial-c> |
Component: | OpenRC | Assignee: | OpenRC Team <openrc> |
Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | perfinion |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) (RETIRED)
![]() There's no bug there Poynomial-C, it's expect. Have a look: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:X86/Working/Initscripts When using before, then the given script is launched before the selected one <if the selected one is part of the init level>. So an init script xdm that defines before alsasound will start before the alsasound script, but <only if alsasound is scheduled to start as well in the same init level>. <If alsasound is not scheduled to start too, then this particular setting has no effect> and xdm will be started when the init system deems it most appropriate. Similarly, after informs ...<if the selected one is part of the init level>. <If not, then the setting has no effect> and the script will be launched by the init system when it deems it most appropriate. So without them sharing same level (your consolekit share none as it is not in any runlevels), both keywords do nothing. While i understand the concern it "should" maybe do like you said, still "it's not a bug, but a feature" (c)Bill Gates :) On the other end, while i myself could enjoy such feature, seeing how portage is resolving deps itself, i just prefer openrc keeping this "simple" scheme and not going into a deps hell calculation when starting an init script ; KISS I think `nobody` is correct. Lars, if you add consolekit to the run level, the services will start in the right order. Otherwise, replace "after" with "need". Since there has been no more activity on this bug, I am closing it and agreeing with @heroxdb. If this change in behaviour is important to you, please feel free to submit a patch. Thanks, William So you're going the easy way by ignoring useful feature requests. Good to know... |