Lennart Poettering [2015-05-13 17:55 +0200]: > On Wed, 13.05.15 17:01, Martin Pitt (martin.p...@ubuntu.com) wrote: > > So, obviously we need to fix the crash; but I was wondering what the > > desired behaviour should be? In the sense of "be liberal what you > > accept" I think the extra space(s) should just be ignored; or should > > that count as an error and the unit get rejected? > > Neither. > > It should be considered an error, logged about, but the line should be > ignored and we should continue. This is how we usually do it so far, > to ensure unit files stay relatively portable between version, but on > the other hand we aren't too liberal with accepting any data.
You mean ignoring this single line, but still starting the unit (with any other Exec*=)? That feels quite odd to me, TBH -- it feels more robust if a unit is either completely valid, or completely inert? Anyway, I'm glad I asked. :-) Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
