[systemd-devel] Per-instance override with foobar.service.d

[David Strauss]

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 <systemd at 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 at .service and foobar at .service.d/myinstance.conf
> foobar at .service and foobar at 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 at .service
> foobar at .service.d/myfirstinstance.conf
> foobar at .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, foobar at myinstance.service.conf)
> ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel



-- 
David Strauss
   | david at davidstrauss.net
   | +1 512 577 5827 [mobile]