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 whole
> > > issue ...
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 t
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 t
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 pers
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 t
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 seem
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 pointers needed. After a fo
Hello
> Wait. Are you saying that the way fork_parent() is used is to modify
> the source code of fork_parent() itself?
No - you just call it, like daemon(). Then later, outside fork_parent()
you call close().
> I was under the impression that fork-parent() was a library
> call that you made to
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 sc
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017, Ismael L. Donis Garcia wrote:
> How can you advertise to Devuan 1.0 RC in DistroWatch?
the release canidate is not yet out. I will be announced on tuesday.
Distrowatch journalists pick up regularly on our announcements which
are circulated via the official devian-announce ma
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> Thanks. File this as a bug where, debian or devuan, and against what
> specifically?
a bug for devuan: https://bugs.devuan.org
against the 'base-files' package which we have forked here
https://git.devuan.org/devuan-packages/base-files
thanks
__
12 matches
Mail list logo
