On 18/04/13 01:27, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 08.04.13 20:08, John Lane ([email protected]) 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
On Mon, 08.04.13 20:08, John Lane ([email protected]) 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 c
On 12/04/13 14:00, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
[email protected] and [email protected]/myinstance.conf
[email protected] and [email protected]/myinstance.conf
This would be possible, if somebody implements it.
which don't work so I guess this isn't implemented. If so, would someth
> > [email protected] and [email protected]/myinstance.conf
> > [email protected] and [email protected]/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 b
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 overr
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
