Hello,
Michael Biebl, on Wed 20 Jul 2016 02:54:14 +0200, wrote:
> Am 20.07.2016 um 01:03 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> > Right. I think this is the problem. Afair, systemd will try to read the
> > pid file as soon as the parent exits. That should happen *after* the
> > forked daemon process is ready an
Am 20.07.2016 um 01:03 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Right. I think this is the problem. Afair, systemd will try to read the
> pid file as soon as the parent exits. That should happen *after* the
> forked daemon process is ready and has written the pid file.
>
> See man daemon(7).
https://www.freede
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:55:42 -0300 Felipe Sateler
wrote:
> On 3 July 2016 at 16:44, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:38:58 -0300, wrote:
> >> On 3 July 2016 at 16:33, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> >> > Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:31:14 -0300, wrote:
> >> >> I
* Christian Hofstaedtler [160703 23:46]:
> Ok. I'll upload the previously submitted diff to DELAYED/5,
As promised, it's now in DELAYED/5.
> and propose we'll see what comes out of the systemd bug report
> at a later time.
Submitted as #829513.
Thanks,
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler
: :'
On 3 July 2016 at 16:44, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:38:58 -0300, wrote:
>> On 3 July 2016 at 16:33, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>> > Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:31:14 -0300, wrote:
>> >> I think the daemonization needs to move later as well:
>> >
>> > Why?
Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:38:58 -0300, wrote:
> On 3 July 2016 at 16:33, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:31:14 -0300, wrote:
> >> I think the daemonization needs to move later as well:
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the usual protocol is "fork when ready".
On 3 July 2016 at 16:33, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:31:14 -0300, wrote:
>> I think the daemonization needs to move later as well:
>
> Why?
Because the usual protocol is "fork when ready". This way you can
simply do stuff like:
$ sudo espeakup && espeak hola ||
Felipe Sateler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:31:14 -0300, wrote:
> I think the daemonization needs to move later as well:
Why?
Opening the sound card before forking doesn't look like a good idea to
me. I prefer to use the pidfile presence as the notification of
espeakup being ready than risking forkish
On 3 July 2016 at 16:18, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 22:02:59 +0200, wrote:
>> * Samuel Thibault [160703 21:51]:
>> > Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 21:43:01 +0200, wrote:
>> > > There's another minor thing I've noticed: espeakup take
Hello,
* Samuel Thibault [160703 22:27]:
> Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 22:02:59 +0200, wrote:
> > * Samuel Thibault [160703 21:51]:
> > > Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 21:43:01 +0200, wrote:
> > > > There's another minor thing I've noticed: espeakup takes a
> > > > re
Hello,
Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 22:02:59 +0200, wrote:
> * Samuel Thibault [160703 21:51]:
> > Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 21:43:01 +0200, wrote:
> > > There's another minor thing I've noticed: espeakup takes a
> > > relatively long time to write it's pidfile afte
Hello,
* Samuel Thibault [160703 21:51]:
> Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 21:43:01 +0200, wrote:
> > There's another minor thing I've noticed: espeakup takes a
> > relatively long time to write it's pidfile after forking.
>
> What do you mean by "long time"? seconds? minutes?
No, in
Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 21:43:01 +0200, wrote:
> I indeed did forget to build with 'dh --with systemd'; added and
> checked that it now enables the service by default. (See new debdiff
> below).
It does work indeed. You can let that version go in.
Thanks!
Samuel
Hello,
Christian Hofstaedtler, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 21:43:01 +0200, wrote:
> There's another minor thing I've noticed: espeakup takes a
> relatively long time to write it's pidfile after forking.
What do you mean by "long time"? seconds? minutes?
> I see that this is actually a Debian change,
Whi
On 3 July 2016 at 15:21, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> z...@debian.org, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 20:55:28 +0200, wrote:
>> I've prepared an NMU for espeakup (versioned as 1:0.71-27.1) and
>> uploaded it to DELAYED/5.
>
> Thanks!
>
> It however doesn't seem to be working properly: when I upgraded a
Hi!
* Samuel Thibault [160703 21:21]:
> It however doesn't seem to be working properly: when I upgraded a
> testbox from Jessie, espeakup didn't start at reboot, I had to run
>
> systemctl enable espeakup
>
> for espeakup to start up automatically at boot, so please remove your
> upload for now
Hello,
z...@debian.org, on Sun 03 Jul 2016 20:55:28 +0200, wrote:
> I've prepared an NMU for espeakup (versioned as 1:0.71-27.1) and
> uploaded it to DELAYED/5.
Thanks!
It however doesn't seem to be working properly: when I upgraded a
testbox from Jessie, espeakup didn't start at reboot, I had t
Control: tags 796608 + patch
Control: tags 796608 + pending
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for espeakup (versioned as 1:0.71-27.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/5. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.
Best,
Christian
diff -Nru espeakup-0.71/debian/changelog espeakup-0.7
18 matches
Mail list logo
