On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 04:21:32PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote: > On Saturday 13 December 2014 at 15:34:01, Ronny Chevalier wrote: > > 2014-12-13 11:33 GMT+01:00 Ivan Shapovalov <intelfx...@gmail.com>: > > > Hello all, > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > it seems that the newly added `systemctl edit` command requires its > > > arguments > > > to be valid unit names. > > > > > > This causes `edit` operation to fail in apparently valid use-cases like > > > > > > systemctl edit getty@.service > > > > This is fixed in git now, thanks! > > > > > or > > > systemctl edit autovt@tty1.service > > > > > > In second case, the error message is especially cryptic: > > > "autovt@tty1.service ignored: not found". > > > > It worked before and it still works for me. > > Do you have "getty@tty1.service" explicity enabled? I do have. > > > > Actually I understand what it does mean: systemctl asks the manager to > > > show > > > unit's FragmentPath -> the manager tries to load the unit -> loading > > > fails with > > > "File exists" because getty@tty1.service is already instantiated. > > > > I don't see why it should fail for this reason ? > > > > > > > > (BTW, it's a separate question: is this failure valid or is it a bug?) > > > > > > > systemctl edit getty@.service, should have worked before so yes this was a > > bug. > > Now both `edit getty@` and `edit getty@tty1` work, but I'd expect the latter > to honor the template parameter; i. e. create a drop-in for > getty@tty1.service... > Is this possible? I made various unifications to the code to make it more maintainable. This case should be fixed too. Please test it... it's easy to miss the corner cases.
Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
