> On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:19, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 05.10.15 09:04, Johannes Ernst (johannes.er...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> I have a foo@.service. When started as
>>      systemctl start foo@abc
>> I’d like all other currently active foo@… services to stop, and vice versa. 
>> All of the foo@.services are supposed to be mutually exclusive with each 
>> other.
>> In foo@.service, I attempted:
>>      Conflicts: foo@.service
>> but that does not seem to do the trick (Starting foo@abc produces 
>> "Dependency Conflicts=foo@abc.service dropped”)
>> I’d like to avoid having to enumerate foo@abc, foo@def etc. in the Conflicts 
>> section.
> Service templates are really about multi-instantiation, and explicitly
> not about enabling parameterization. That's why we only take a single
> instance identifier as parameter, and not a list of parameters, for
> example.

Good to know the principle here.

> Why wouldn't a nomral suervice suffice for your usecase, with maybe a
> few .d/ dropins to configure things differently?

That’s the kind of thing I will probably do.



systemd-devel mailing list

Reply via email to