On 12/04/13 14:00, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
foobar@.service and foobar@.service.d/myinstance.conf
foobar@.service and foobar@myinstance.service.d/myinstance.conf
This would be possible, if somebody implements it.
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
The idea is that different sources (rpms, administrator, whatever)
provide snippets that are then merged. So there's no central "registration"
of snippet names, and the namespace cannot be reused for instances.
What about this though?
foobar@myfirstinstance.service.d/...
foobar@mysecondinstance.service./...
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)
There can be multiple files.
Sure there can be multiple files, but I did suggest this as an
alternative when there is only one file.
I'm finding that I have lots of examples where I have a directory
containing one file and it seems like an unnecessary complexity in that
scenario.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
