wantedby target

[Patrick Venture]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:13 PM Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:04:09PM -0700, William Kennington wrote:
> >It's still unclear to me why we even have obmc-standby.target instead
> >of just using multi-user.target.
>
> This is my fault.  It only exists because in the early days (early
> 2016?) I thought it might be useful to quarantine OpenBMC applications
> in their own target.

It's not a bad argument, IMHO.  It's makes sense because it's a way of
grouping them and starting them after some point.  That said, we've
all looked back every few years and revisited decisions.

>
> There weren't any requirements driving that and in all this time noone
> has commented on its facility so I support doing the normal thing and
> just putting all our units in multi-user.
>
> >I think it has something to do with host power on / off on ibm machines
> >and how they pick which services to start.
> Andrew, do we rely on this somewhere?  I hope not...

If the answer here is that we don't -- when I start staging the
service file patches, I'll move them all towards multi-user.target.

>
> >We almost certainly don't want to be using the basic.target as that is
> >reserved for core system services and ordered Before all targets.
> Agreed.
>
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:20 AM Patrick Venture <venture at google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> When moving service files to the repo there is a choice.  To hard-code
> >> the wanted by information in the service file, or providing a variable
> >> for it that can be set via configuration (via the recipe).
> >>
> >> There's the default which is obmc-standby.target, there's the more
> >> popular multi-user.target and basic.target -- I was curious if there
> >> was a consensus or a best practice here?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Patrick