[systemd-devel] [RFC][PATCH] conf-parser: allow instanced sections

[Tom Gundersen]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:02 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/19/2013 09:20 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Colin Guthrie<gmane at colin.guthr.ie>
>> wrote:
>> What I have in mind (though it is not dictated by this patch) is
>> something different (first proposed by Lennart in an earlier thread):
>>
>> [Network]
>> Address=192.168.0.1/24
>> Address=192.168.0.2/24
>> Gateway=192.168.1.1
>>
>> [Address:oneaddress]
>> Address=192.168.0.3/24
>> Label=three
>> Peer=192.168.1.1
>>
>> [Address:anotheraddress]
>> Address=192.168.0.4/24
>> Label=four
>>
>> In this case we'll configure four addresses. The two first ones could
>> also have been expressed as:
>>
>> [Address:foo]
>> Address=192.168.0.1/24
>>
>> [Address:bar]
>> Address=192.168.0.2/24,
>>
>> but we allow putting them directly in the [Network] section rather
>> than in a named [Address] section as a shorthand.
>>
>> Notice that if we simply did
>>
>> [Address]
>> Address=192.168.0.3/24
>> Label=three
>> Peer=192.168.1.1
>>
>> [Address]
>> Address=192.168.0.4/24
>> Label=four,
>>
>> that wouldn't work as it is (at least currently) equivalent to
>>
>> [Address]
>> Address=192.168.0.3/24
>> Label=three
>> Peer=192.168.1.1
>> Address=192.168.0.4/24
>> Label=four,
>>
>> which is why we need to give the secitons unique names.
>
>
> Arent's we sacrificing significant part of simplicity in units going down
> this path as opposed to have users use per unit interface instances units
> and templating/instances ?

I don't quite follow how that would work? You may be right that this
is not the simplest syntax though, I'm trying to come up with
something better.

-t