2014-12-13 11:33 GMT+01:00 Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx...@gmail.com>: > 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 fixed in git now, thanks! > or > systemctl edit autovt@tty1.service > > In second case, the error message is especially cryptic: > "autovt@tty1.service ignored: not found". It worked before and it still works for me. > > Actually I understand what it does mean: systemctl asks the manager to show > unit's FragmentPath -> the manager tries to load the unit -> loading fails > with > "File exists" because getty@tty1.service is already instantiated. I don't see why it should fail for this reason ? > > (BTW, it's a separate question: is this failure valid or is it a bug?) > systemctl edit getty@.service, should have worked before so yes this was a bug. > But well. I guess that `edit` operation should always work with unit files > directly, just like enable/disable commands do. systemctl edit try to use the bus if it is possible, because this is the only way you can know where is the unit file of the unit foo.service currently running. Is it in /etc/systemd or /usr/lib/systemd? If we check directly the file system we will assume this is the first directory with the highest priority, which is wrong in some cases. But systemctl edit wanted to work with valid unit names which is wrong in some cases too, so this is fixed now. > > Is this all correct? Can anyone please comment on these two issues? Thanks for the report! > > -- > Ivan Shapovalov / intelfx / > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel > _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
