On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 02:27:28AM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Lennart Poettering > <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 20.11.13 14:38, Tom Gundersen (t...@jklm.no) wrote: > > > >> Pass on the line on which a section was decleared to the parsers, so they > >> can distinguish between multiple sections (if they chose to). Currently > >> no parsers take advantage of this, but a follow-up patch will do that > >> to distinguish > >> > >> [Address] > >> Address=192.168.0.1/24 > >> Label=one > >> > >> [Address] > >> Address=192.168.0.2/24 > >> Label=two > >> > >> from > >> > >> [Address] > >> Address=192.168.0.1/24 > >> Label=one > >> Address=192.168.0.2/24 > >> Label=two > > > > I do like this solution better, but I can see Thomas' point. And the > > issue Thomas points out manifests itself in handling of .d/ > > directories... If we want to support .d/ directories for these > > configuration files (do we?) then how can we extend the settings of a > > specific existing [Address] section? > > My take was that we do not want to support .d/ directories, udev supports overrides, tmpfiles support them too, so do systemd units, and sysctl settings. I'm pretty sure we can assume that overrides for network files will happen sooner or later. Also, it's not just /etc/... overriddes, but also /run/... overrides, for until-reboot settings.
Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
