Re: [systemd-devel] run no more than one of foo@.service at a time

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 6:19, Lennart Poettering 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

Re: [systemd-devel] run no more than one of foo@.service at a time

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 eac

Re: [systemd-devel] run no more than one of foo@.service at a time

Johannes Ernst wrote on 05/10/15 23:53: > >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 14:29, David Timothy Strauss >> mailto:da...@davidstrauss.net>> wrote: >> >> If you only want one instance running, why not just create one service >> and reconfigure/restart it? >> > Because the service dependencies are totally diffe

Re: [systemd-devel] run no more than one of foo@.service at a time

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 14:29, David Timothy Strauss > wrote: > > If you only want one instance running, why not just create one service and > reconfigure/restart it? > Because the service dependencies are totally different. > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015, 09:04 Johannes Ernst

Re: [systemd-devel] run no more than one of foo@.service at a time

If you only want one instance running, why not just create one service and reconfigure/restart it? On Mon, Oct 5, 2015, 09:04 Johannes Ernst 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 >

[systemd-devel] run no more than one of foo@.service at a time

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