Re: One-shot Shepherd services

[Ludovic Courtès]

Chris Marusich <address@hidden> skribis:

> At first I was a little confused about why we would ever want to use a
> one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation snippet, but after
> reviewing the account-shepherd-service, I think I understand.  It seems
> that we make it a one-shot shepherd service instead of an activation
> snippet so that we can take advantage of shepherd's service dependency
> management.  In the case of account-shepherd-service, it looks like we
> made it a shepherd service to ensure that it would run after
> 'file-systems' is up.  This makes sense, since it could be a little
> awkward to try to ensure proper execution order by extending the
> activation service, and even if we did that, it would duplicate the
> dependency management logic that shepherd gives us already.

Yes, that’s exactly the reason.

The ‘user-homes’ service was introduced to fix a bug whereby, if you
were using a separate /home, home directories would be created at the
wrong time—i.e., before the real /home was mounted.

Ludo’.