It does seem like an inconsistency. I'm guessing it's just not implemented. We don't have instance support yet for mounts, and that's because it's hard to do in a way that preserves consistency and flexibility. I can't think of any reason why that would be the case for instance services + *.d overrides, but maybe I'm missing something.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM, John Lane <syst...@jelmail.com> wrote: > I'm trying out the new foobar.service.d way of overriding unit files. > > I thought that I'd be able to have a number of service instances that were > overridden differently but that does not seem to be the case (or, at least, > I can't get it to work). > > I first updated to systemd 200 and tried foobar.service.d with > foobar.service.d/custom.conf; this works as described on the man page and > release notes. > > I've also tried: > > foobar@.service and foobar@.service.d/myinstance.conf > foobar@.service and foobar@myinstance.service.d/myinstance.conf > > which don't work so I guess this isn't implemented. If so, would something > like that be a reasonable request to be considered ? > > I was thinking... > foobar@.service > foobar@.service.d/myfirstinstance.conf > foobar@.service.d/mysecondinstance.conf > > where the relevant .conf would be selected based on the instance name. > > I was also wondering why the need for a separate sub-directory when there's > only one file inside it. Could a file like "foobar.service.conf" be > considered as an alternative (and, perhaps, foo...@myinstance.service.conf) > ? > > > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel -- David Strauss | da...@davidstrauss.net | +1 512 577 5827 [mobile] _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
