'Twas brillig, and Tom Gundersen at 08/08/13 18:08 did gyre and gimble: > > On 8 Aug 2013 17:57, "Thomas Bächler" <tho...@archlinux.org > <mailto:tho...@archlinux.org>> wrote: >> >> Am 08.08.2013 15:19, schrieb Michal Sekletar: >> > Calling enable on template units doesn't make sense since it is possible >> > to enable instances directly and users are not forced to use Alias= >> > trickery anymore. >> >> Actually, it would make sense to do this instead: >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg09244.html > > Yes, we should do this too. But we still need to solve the case when > DefaultInstance is not specified.
I actually ran into a problem the other day related to this. I forgot to update my .spec after updating systemd to 206 and because of http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=7aa4fa34f76b0d9b031f0a5ea941c7fa10cebbee it caused an interesting problem. Doing "systemctl enable getty@.service simply created a getty@.service symlink. When this was run at boot, it resulted in systemd trying to start getty@getty.target, i.e. the instance name was filled in with the unit name. Ultimately this lead to agetty failing (as /dev/getty didn't exist) and as it has Restart=always in the unit, it kept going and going and going... Not the nicest experience. Surely if you try and start a template unit without any instance it should simply fail rather than default to the unit name? Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
