Re: Bug#126750/749: klogd/sysklogd should optionally be started from init(8)

2001-12-29 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Dec 29, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> What do people think? > >Go for it. The OOM killer will hit just about anything which is not a kernel > >thread, and losing syslogd and klogd is a major no-no. > The OOM code is supp

Re: Bug#126750/749: klogd/sysklogd should optionally be started from init(8)

2001-12-29 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Dec 29, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What do people think? >Go for it. The OOM killer will hit just about anything which is not a kernel >thread, and losing syslogd and klogd is a major no-no. The OOM code is supposed to be fixed in 2.4 kernels. I still see no r

Re: Bug#126750/749: klogd/sysklogd should optionally be started from init(8)

2001-12-28 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Martin Schulze wrote: > What do people think? Go for it. The OOM killer will hit just about anything which is not a kernel thread, and losing syslogd and klogd is a major no-no. I do thing one should warn about the change on upgrades through a debconf high-priority note, tho