On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:29:38AM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 06:35:09 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 04:21:32PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> > > On Saturday 13 December 2014 at 15:34:01, Ronny Chevalier wrote:
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 at 06:35:09 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 04:21:32PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> > On Saturday 13 December 2014 at 15:34:01, Ronny Chevalier wrote:
> > > 2014-12-13 11:33 GMT+01:00 Ivan Shapovalov :
> > > > Hello all,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 04:21:32PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
> On Saturday 13 December 2014 at 15:34:01, Ronny Chevalier wrote:
> > 2014-12-13 11:33 GMT+01:00 Ivan Shapovalov :
> > > Hello all,
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > >
> > > it seems that the newly added `systemctl edit` command requires i
On Saturday 13 December 2014 at 15:34:01, Ronny Chevalier wrote:
> 2014-12-13 11:33 GMT+01:00 Ivan Shapovalov :
> > Hello all,
>
> Hi,
>
> >
> > it seems that the newly added `systemctl edit` command requires its
> > arguments
> > to be valid unit names.
> >
> > This causes `edit` operat
2014-12-13 11:33 GMT+01:00 Ivan Shapovalov :
> Hello all,
Hi,
>
> it seems that the newly added `systemctl edit` command requires its arguments
> to be valid unit names.
>
> This causes `edit` operation to fail in apparently valid use-cases like
>
> systemctl edit getty@.service
This is fixe
Hello all,
it seems that the newly added `systemctl edit` command requires its arguments
to be valid unit names.
This causes `edit` operation to fail in apparently valid use-cases like
systemctl edit getty@.service
or
systemctl edit autovt@tty1.service
In second case, the error message
