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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.mewrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.me
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am posting this to venture an opinion, and see if anyone has
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com 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
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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dieter Plaetinck die...@plaetinck.bewrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Lee Burton lbur...@mrow.org 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
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:26:08 -0600
Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
die...@plaetinck.bewrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com wrote:
But regardless, this should support the Arch style
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dieter Plaetinck die...@plaetinck.bewrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:26:08 -0600
Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
die...@plaetinck.bewrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:58:19 -0600
Thomas S Hatch
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Lee Burton lbur...@mrow.org wrote:
Append is okay (most likely dependencies are already in place for a
service), but it would be nice to specify dependencies / ensure
necessary
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM, C Anthony Risinger anth...@extof.mewrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Lee Burton lbur...@mrow.org wrote:
Append is okay (most likely dependencies are already in place for a
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Thomas S Hatch thatc...@gmail.com
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
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Nigel Kersten ni...@puppetlabs.com 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.
16 matches
Mail list logo