Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

systemd target representing configured system #77

Closed
2 tasks
tjkirch opened this issue Jul 17, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed
2 tasks

systemd target representing configured system #77

tjkirch opened this issue Jul 17, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@tjkirch
Copy link
Contributor

tjkirch commented Jul 17, 2019

We need a systemd target representing the point at which all userdata (moondog) and dynamic (sundog) configuration is complete. This is what services like k8s and EKS will depend on, because they need the user's cluster settings to be fully applied to the system before starting.

  • Create target
  • Update k8s/EKS service units to depend on it, in addition to network or other existing dependencies
@zmrow
Copy link
Contributor

zmrow commented Jul 19, 2019

My vote is to update moondog and sundog to not commit settings changes.

I don't like the implicit knowledge involved by just updating moondog. A simple atomic unit that does the commit is more in line with the rest of the single-use tools we are building.

@zmrow
Copy link
Contributor

zmrow commented Jul 19, 2019

Also, I'm happy to update moondog and sundog and leave them in a PR to merge whenever we're ready.

@tjkirch
Copy link
Contributor Author

tjkirch commented Jul 19, 2019

We don't actually have to change the commit behavior in the same issue, because the services depending on sundog (with the new ordering from this issue) won't have started yet. So, it doesn't matter if we write config twice and "restart" the service, since systemctl won't "restart" a service that hasn't started yet, in the way that most sysv init scripts would.

I'm going to split that into another issue. We have to come up with a name for the thing that commits at boot, anyway, and naming is hard.

@tjkirch tjkirch self-assigned this Jul 19, 2019
@tjkirch
Copy link
Contributor Author

tjkirch commented Aug 8, 2019

Fixed in #96

@tjkirch tjkirch closed this as completed Aug 8, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants