On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:22:36 -0400
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:04:18PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT
> > consult wrote:
> > > By the way: maybe we should write an RFC draft for the
On 2017-04-16 19:21, Hendrik Boom wrote:
Recently I failed to attend a Debian bug squashing party here in
Montreal
because I was otherwise engaged that day. If I had attended I would
have
learned something about Debian packaging, which could perhaps have been
useful here.
But the report on
Recently I failed to attend a Debian bug squashing party here in Montreal
because I was otherwise engaged that day. If I had attended I would have
learned something about Debian packaging, which could perhaps have been
useful here.
But the report on the bug squashing party contains links to
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:04:18PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> wrote:
> > On 15.04.2017 19:50, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > > About my characterizations: "Baroque" is a relative thing. What I wrote
> > > was based on "why
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:59:36PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
wrote:
> On 15.04.2017 19:50, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > About my characterizations: "Baroque" is a relative thing. What I wrote
> > was based on "why would you not simply use a process supervisor like
> > systemd?" If a
Enrico Weigelt:
...
> If one doesn't want a supervisor, why not just using something like
> start-stop-daemon ? IIRC, it should handle that quite well.
Why not just start the program and kill it when not needed anymore ?
You know, you don't have to have a supervisor.
> I wonder why that general
On 15.04.2017 19:50, Steve Litt wrote:
> About my characterizations: "Baroque" is a relative thing. What I wrote
> was based on "why would you not simply use a process supervisor like
> systemd?" If a person has a reason not to use such a supervisor, and in
> fact the whole OpenRC init system
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:01:02 +0200
marc wrote in response to Steve Litt:
> > And therefore I was wondering
> > why fork_parent() didn't take a function address as an argument, and
> > call that callback function's address where you have the elipses.
>
> No function
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 08:32:30PM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 01:06:53PM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
> > Yet I believe we should file this as a bug as /etc/debian_version is
> > not there on new installs. The /etc/debian_version file is checked by
> > an enormous quantity of