On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote:
> Just noting that while I'm traveling and at a course, and thus not
> answering all my email quickly, I'm reading this thread keenly, and
> we're happy to help implement whatever is the most sane thing to do on
> Arch.
>
> Forcing systemd as
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Thomas S Hatch
> wrote:
> > I think that the unfolding systemd issues here and the fact that we may
> be
> > required to move to systemd might rewrite this problem altogether, in
> which
> >
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> I think that the unfolding systemd issues here and the fact that we may be
> required to move to systemd might rewrite this problem altogether, in which
> case systemd would translate ordering and the order of services as they ar
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Thomas S Hatch
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Lee Burton wrote:
> >>
> >> Append is okay (most likely dependencies are already in place for a
> >> service), but it would be nice to spe
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Lee Burton wrote:
>>
>> Append is okay (most likely dependencies are already in place for a
>> service), but it would be nice to specify dependencies / ensure
>> necessary services are running. We should
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:26:08 -0600
> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
> > > Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> > >
> > > > But regardless, this s
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:26:08 -0600
> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
> > > Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> > >
> > > > But regardless, this s
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:26:08 -0600
Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
> > Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> >
> > > But regardless, this should support the Arch style runlevel.
> >
> > maybe... in theory it's possib
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Lee Burton wrote:
> Append is okay (most likely dependencies are already in place for a
> service), but it would be nice to specify dependencies / ensure
> necessary services are running. We should allow the module writer /
> administrator to specify these depen
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
> Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>
> > But regardless, this should support the Arch style runlevel.
>
> maybe... in theory it's possible that in a month we switch to systemd as
> official init system. this will
Append is okay (most likely dependencies are already in place for a
service), but it would be nice to specify dependencies / ensure
necessary services are running. We should allow the module writer /
administrator to specify these dependencies so they can specify custom
depends/etc. The logic sho
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> But regardless, this should support the Arch style runlevel.
maybe... in theory it's possible that in a month we switch to systemd as
official init system. this will probably not happen (soon), but just
saying.
> I do think that if it
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, C Anthony Risinger
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch
> wrote:
> >> I am posting this to venture an opinion, and see if anyone has any ideas
> on
> >> how best to handle thi
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
>> I am posting this to venture an opinion, and see if anyone has any ideas on
>> how best to handle this situation.
>>
>> I am working with the puppet developers to help improve
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> Right now the best idea we have been able to come up with is to have puppet
> simply append the named services to the end of the DAEMONS array in the
> rc.conf, but I wanted to ask the community if anyone had any alternative
> ideas on how t
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
> I am posting this to venture an opinion, and see if anyone has any ideas on
> how best to handle this situation.
>
> I am working with the puppet developers to help improve Arch Linux support
> in puppet (for those of you unfamiliar with pu
I am posting this to venture an opinion, and see if anyone has any ideas on
how best to handle this situation.
I am working with the puppet developers to help improve Arch Linux support
in puppet (for those of you unfamiliar with puppet, it is an amazingly
crucial component in datacenter managemen
17 matches
Mail list logo
