Re: [EXT] Template unit : specifier validity

["Windl, Ulrich" <u.windl@xxxxxx>]

Hi!

I have a related question (actually I found that issue in some vendor-provided unit):
Should systemd warn if a template service used PIDfile without a placeholder like %i?
Most likely that won't work well IMHO.

Kind regards,
Ulrich Windl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemd-devel <systemd-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
> Behalf Of Thomas HUMMEL
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 11:32 AM
> To: systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [EXT]  Template unit : specifier validity
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Is the %i (or %I) specifier supposed to be valid for a template service
> unit for the Require= and After= directives ?
> It does not seem so in my tests
> 
> Documentation states:
> "you may use the special "%i" specifier in many of the configuration
> options" but don't seem to detail which one exactly.
> 
> It also states:
> "The following specifiers are interpreted in the Install section: %a,
> %b, %B, %g, %G, %H, %i, %j, %l, %m, %n, %N, %o, %p, %u, %U, %v, %w, %W,
> %%"
> 
> But I think some are valid in (some) directives of the [Unit] or
> [Service] section.
> 
> My use case would be to express a dynamic activation and order
> dependency on a device name known only at boot time.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help
> 
> --
> Thomas HUMMEL
> HPC Group
> Institut PASTEUR
> Paris, FRANCE