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

man: explicitly distinguish "implicit dependencies" and "default dependencies" #6801

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 14, 2017

Conversation

@johnlinp
Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 12, 2017

There are 2 commits here.

The first one moves a paragraph about recommending bus-based/socket-based activation, which I think is less relevant to automatic dependencies, from "Automatic Dependencies" section to "Description" section.

The second one is the fix that really fixes #6793.

@poettering
Copy link
Member

left a comment

looks pretty good, but two comments

Also the PR title is misleading now, it still says "automatic" instead of "implicit"

@@ -98,6 +98,12 @@
</refsect1>

<refsect1>
<title>Default Dependencies</title>

<para>There are no default dependencies for device units.</para>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@poettering

poettering Sep 12, 2017

Member

for the other pages you just added an xml comment. but for .device you added a section. Oversight or intended? (i think adding a comment instead is better)

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@johnlinp

johnlinp Sep 13, 2017

Author Contributor

For unit type pages, I want to explicitly point out that there are no implicit/default dependencies because I mentioned them in systemd.unit(5).

For systemd.exec and systemd.resource-control, since they are only referenced in "Implicit Dependencies", I think it's okay to use comment.

So yes, it was intended. But I am open with changing them to comments.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@johnlinp

johnlinp Sep 13, 2017

Author Contributor

A few more words on my intention: when a user reads the sentence "For the implicit dependencies in each unit type, please refer to section "Implicit Dependencies" in respective man pages." in systemd.unit(5) and go see systemd.target(5) for the section "Implicit Dependencies", I want the user to know that target units don't have any implicit dependencies instead of being confused about "where is the Implicit Dependencies section?"

<title>Automatic Dependencies</title>
<title>Implicit Dependencies</title>

<para>The following dependencies are implicitly added.</para>

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@poettering

poettering Sep 12, 2017

Member

maybe end this in a colon, and then use an itemizedlist for the paragaphs? (here and everywhere else)

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@johnlinp

johnlinp Sep 13, 2017

Author Contributor

Okay, I will change it. Thanks.

@johnlinp johnlinp changed the title man: explicitly distinguish "automatic dependencies" and "default dependencies" man: explicitly distinguish "implicit dependencies" and "default dependencies" Sep 13, 2017

@johnlinp johnlinp force-pushed the johnlinp:master branch from 18640b9 to 45f09f9 Sep 13, 2017

@johnlinp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 13, 2017

In the new commit, I modified the paragraphs into bullets style. The PR title and the commit message are updated too.

Please see my previous comment on why I didn't use comments in systemd.device and systemd.target, thank you.

@poettering poettering merged commit 21f0669 into systemd:master Sep 14, 2017

4 checks passed

semaphoreci The build passed on Semaphore.
Details
xenial-amd64 autopkgtest finished (success)
Details
xenial-i386 autopkgtest finished (success)
Details
xenial-s390x autopkgtest finished (success)
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.