On 01/22/2013 09:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Nope, there isn't. We currently do not allow this because we don't > really know what to the per-connection service instances would be called > like. i.e. if the socket is called foo@bar.socket, and it is activated, > do you just drop the "bar" and activate > foo@3-172.16.1.1-555-47.11.8.15-777.service? This would not cover > your use case. So, the question is what to do instead.
That's what I suspected. If coming up with a naming convention is the biggest obstacle, that would certainly seem to be a solvable problem. Off the cuff, I'd say that foo@bar@3-172.16.1.1-555-47.11.8.15-777.service ought to do the trick. Ideally, "bar" and "3-172.16.1.1-555-47.11.8.15-777" would be passed separately to the .service file -- %i and &j or somesuch. In a pinch, however, all of it could be stuffed into the instance name, and the service file author would just have to deal with it. (If desired, %j and %k could always be added later to provide the separate components.) This is where you say "patches welcome", and I beg off because of limited time (and lack of familiarity with the code base). Any systemd hackers out there looking for a project? ;-) Thanks! -- ======================================================================== Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com Sometimes there's nothing left to do but crash and burn...or die trying. ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
