On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:54:26 +0200, Ola wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:46:04PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:20:34 +0200, Ola wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:58:17AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > ...CUT... > > > > > Thanks for this. I fully agree that it is not necessary to > > > > > start at all when upgrading or installing. No virtual server > > > > > has been started anyway so it should only be started later. > > > > > > > > > > I have changed it now so that it only stop at removal and not > > > > > start at installation. It add the start of vz to the things to > > > > > start at the start of the computer though (init.d). > > > > > > > > ...and earn you another bug for leaving a running service, > > > > stopped. ;o) > > > > > > But when you are removing the package, I must assume that it shall > > > be stopped, or? :) > > > > ..aye. ;o) And chk if I wanna have it started "next time", "some > > time" or "like hell I will." > > > > > In any case it is not possible to stop it when it has been > > > removed. > > > > ..no? Learn to live with pacifism or file a bug on kill. ;o) > > Kill can not see virtual servers at all. They are kernel containers > (that is the reason why the kernel need to be patched) and one > container can not see processes from the other one. So no kill > will not work. > > Regards, ..then it's peace. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
