On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 06:49:34PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
> statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]"):
> > I agree with all of the technical critiques here, I just don't see that this
>
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]"):
> I agree with all of the technical critiques here, I just don't see that this
> relatively minor issue, which can be documented and worked around (and
> ul
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 05:39:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
> statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]"):
> > I agree. It would still require some fiddling to make 'expect stop' work
&
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]"):
> I agree. It would still require some fiddling to make 'expect stop' work
> together with strace anyway, since upstart only cares about SIGSTOP rais
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 04:31:30PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Miroslaw Baran writes ("Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
> statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]"):
> > You wrote:
> > > One non-feature of upstart which I happen to care strongly ab
Miroslaw Baran writes ("Bug#727708: Value of reading other's position
statements [was: systemd vs. whatever]"):
> You wrote:
> > One non-feature of upstart which I happen to care strongly about is its
> > use of ptrace(2) to figure out what a job is doing. This de
Dear Mr. Urlichs,
You wrote:
> One non-feature of upstart which I happen to care strongly about is its
> use of ptrace(2) to figure out what a job is doing. This destroys any
> attempt to just use "strace foo" as the job, if one really needs to
> figure out what a piece of software is doing wrong
7 matches
Mail list logo
