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-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> On > Behalf Of Thomas HUMMEL > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 11:32 AM > To: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: [EXT] [systemd-devel] 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
