On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:02 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/19/2013 09:20 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Colin Guthrie<gm...@colin.guthr.ie> >> wrote: >> What I have in mind (though it is not dictated by this patch) is >> something different (first proposed by Lennart in an earlier thread): >> >> [Network] >> Address=192.168.0.1/24 >> Address=192.168.0.2/24 >> Gateway=192.168.1.1 >> >> [Address:oneaddress] >> Address=192.168.0.3/24 >> Label=three >> Peer=192.168.1.1 >> >> [Address:anotheraddress] >> Address=192.168.0.4/24 >> Label=four >> >> In this case we'll configure four addresses. The two first ones could >> also have been expressed as: >> >> [Address:foo] >> Address=192.168.0.1/24 >> >> [Address:bar] >> Address=192.168.0.2/24, >> >> but we allow putting them directly in the [Network] section rather >> than in a named [Address] section as a shorthand. >> >> Notice that if we simply did >> >> [Address] >> Address=192.168.0.3/24 >> Label=three >> Peer=192.168.1.1 >> >> [Address] >> Address=192.168.0.4/24 >> Label=four, >> >> that wouldn't work as it is (at least currently) equivalent to >> >> [Address] >> Address=192.168.0.3/24 >> Label=three >> Peer=192.168.1.1 >> Address=192.168.0.4/24 >> Label=four, >> >> which is why we need to give the secitons unique names. > > Arent's we sacrificing significant part of simplicity in units going down > this path as opposed to have users use per unit interface instances units > and templating/instances ?
I think it's ok. But we should probably answer why we don't simply allow the repetition of plain sections, like we allow the repetition of identical keys in them. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
