On 11/14/2011 01:28 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
Anyway, I'll start work on the logging changes and add a unit file and
see how we go. Should autofs install the unit file into the systemd area
or what should do?
So the final unit file should look something like this...
### autofs.service ###
[Unit]
$ rpm -qf /usr/share/man/man7/daemon.7.gz
systemd-37-3.fc16.x86_64
- Original Message -
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:22:02PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Please have a look at the check list in daemon(7).
What package is that man page in?
$ man 7 daemon
No manual entry for
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 14:05 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 10.11.11 11:07, Ian Kent (ra...@themaw.net) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 11:01 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/09/2011 05:49 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
What other form of encouragement can you suggest?
This
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:22:02PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Please have a look at the check list in daemon(7).
What package is that man page in?
$ man 7 daemon
No manual entry for daemon in section 7
Also, a google search for man 7 daemon, daemon(7), daemon man
page, man daemon section
On Thu, 10.11.11 11:07, Ian Kent (ra...@themaw.net) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 11:01 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/09/2011 05:49 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
What other form of encouragement can you suggest?
This email thread for a start.
We have had email threads like this
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Note that only double-forking
will properly detach a process from the parent it is started from on
Unix, and hence is not an option but mandatory to do
In the traditional SysV, the process executing
On Thu, 10.11.11 11:24, Ian Kent (ra...@themaw.net) wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 11:01 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Now taking a quick look at the autofs service which I assume you are
referring too I'm not seeing anykind of massive rewrite in order for the
daemon ( which
On Fri, 11.11.11 14:12, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Note that only double-forking
will properly detach a process from the parent it is started from on
Unix, and hence is not an option but mandatory
On Fri, 11.11.11 14:36, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Fri, 11.11.11 14:12, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to move forward
the conversion of the
On 11/09/2011 01:56 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tomasz Torczto...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraztm...@redhat.com wrote:
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to
On Wed, 09.11.11 13:49, Ian Kent (ra...@themaw.net) wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:52 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the
On 11/09/2011 05:49 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
What other form of encouragement can you suggest?
This email thread for a start.
We have had email threads like this for two release cycles now and yet
the main problem still remains the same packagers/maintainers not either
migrating themselves or
2011/11/9 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
On 11/09/2011 05:49 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
That only leaves this relevant sections from that quick look that needs
some work and remains questionable if that should be handled in unit
file et all...
# Check misc device
if [ -n
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If yours cant be autoloaded on use here's a conf file that loads that
module.
### autofs.conf ###
# Load autofs module at boot
autofs4
Isn't loading autofs one of the first things systemd does anyway, because
it's used to implement systemd's on-access
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 12:07 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
2011/11/9 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
On 11/09/2011 05:49 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
That only leaves this relevant sections from that quick look that needs
some work and remains questionable if that should be handled in unit
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 11:01 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/09/2011 05:49 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
What other form of encouragement can you suggest?
This email thread for a start.
We have had email threads like this for two release cycles now and yet
the main problem still
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 11:01 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Now taking a quick look at the autofs service which I assume you are
referring too I'm not seeing anykind of massive rewrite in order for the
daemon ( which generally is an exception that a rule ) to work in
systemd unit so
On 11/08/2011 12:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Yupp, newer versions might want to use /run instead of /var/run, and
drop all references to syslog.target. But then again, this is not key,
as nothing breaks if they do.
This is such a large scale change that it's better to make them future
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to move forward
the conversion of the sysvinit scripts to systemd units in Fedora 17.
The packages which ship sysvinit script but do not ship systemd unit
according to the
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to move forward
the conversion of the sysvinit scripts to systemd units in Fedora 17.
The packages which ship
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 12:37 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/08/2011 12:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Yupp, newer versions might want to use /run instead of /var/run, and
drop all references to syslog.target. But then again, this is not key,
as nothing breaks if they do.
On 11/08/2011 07:53 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
This is still very debatable as it means any update to the unit file in
the package will not be reflected on the system anymore.
Not if you use .include
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Systemd#How_do_I_customize_a_unit_file.2F_add_a_custom_unit_file.3F
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 13:52 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to move forward
the conversion of the sysvinit scripts
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to move forward
the conversion of the sysvinit scripts to systemd units in Fedora 17.
The packages which ship sysvinit script but do not ship systemd unit
according to the Fedora packaging guidelines violate this rule:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:35:18 -0900
Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
Eventual blocking of the packages that violate this Fedora packaging
rule was not yet definitively decided upon, but we agreed that the
Fedora package
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:35 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Tomas Mraz tm...@redhat.com wrote:
Eventual blocking of the packages that violate this Fedora packaging
rule was not yet definitively decided upon, but we agreed that the
Fedora package maintainers
On 11/07/2011 07:41 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:35 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Tomas Mraztm...@redhat.com wrote:
Eventual blocking of the packages that violate this Fedora packaging
rule was not yet definitively decided upon, but we agreed
28 matches
Mail list logo
