wantedby target

wantedby target

[Patrick Venture]

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

Re: wantedby target

[William Kennington]

It's still unclear to me why we even have obmc-standby.target instead
of just using multi-user.target. I think it has something to do with
host power on / off on ibm machines and how they pick which services
to start. 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.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:20 AM Patrick Venture <venture@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

Re: wantedby target

[Patrick Venture]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:04 PM William Kennington <wak@google.com> wrote:
>
> It's still unclear to me why we even have obmc-standby.target instead
> of just using multi-user.target. I think it has something to do with
> host power on / off on ibm machines and how they pick which services
> to start. 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.

I think this:

https://github.com/openbmc/entity-manager/blob/master/service_files/xyz.openbmc_project.EntityManager.service

and the other service file are the only ones started by basic.target.

I think moving to multi-user.target is a good plan for moving the
service files into the repos -- instead of having it be a configurable
variable.  Just to simplify it.

>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:20 AM Patrick Venture <venture@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

Re: wantedby target

[Brad Bishop]

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.

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...

>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@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

Re: wantedby target

[Patrick Venture]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:13 PM Brad Bishop <bradleyb@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@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