> On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:19, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 05.10.15 09:04, Johannes Ernst ([email protected]) wrote: > >> I have a [email protected]. When started as >> systemctl start foo@abc >> I’d like all other currently active foo@… services to stop, and vice versa. >> All of the [email protected] are supposed to be mutually exclusive with each >> other. >> >> In [email protected], I attempted: >> Conflicts: [email protected] >> but that does not seem to do the trick (Starting foo@abc produces >> "Dependency [email protected] 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 [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
