systemd '.service' name suffix?

[Eric Sorenson]

On https://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/15911#change-69276


There is an open question about whether it's safe to append a suffix of '.service' to the service name for systemd -- Can someone with deep knowledge of systemd please chime in on the ticket?


Thanks
-=Eric


Eric Sorenson - eric.s...@puppetlabs.com
PuppetConf'12 - 27-28 Sep in SF - http://bit.ly/pcsig12

[Jon Stanley]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Eric Sorenson
<eric.s...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:

> There is an open question about whether it's safe to append a suffix of
> '.service' to the service name for systemd -- Can someone with deep
> knowledge of systemd please chime in on the ticket?

Don't have an account there. But something ending in .service is but
one example of a systemd unit. All have similar properties (in that
they can be started, stopped, have status, etc). For the service type
in puppet, it would be 99.9% safe to just append .service in the
systemd provider and be done with it. But perhaps people would want to
manage other types of units with puppet - for which a new type could
be written, but given that they share so much with "services", it
makes sense to just overload that, IMO - so I guess the answer is that
there's pros and cons to both approaches :)

$0.02
-Jon