> 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. Thanks, Johannes. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
