On 2011-06-08 5:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Yes, that stuff can get confusing and it's easy to get it mixed up.
Te way it's done is the only really sane way - consider how it would
play out if the setting was a value or a list of possibilities - you
couldn't put a commented example in there
On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:18 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant
Edwards
did opine thusly:
A recent update seems to have broken sshd. It no longer starts when
it should. It seems to refuse to start up unless eth0 is up.
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:43 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant Edwards
did opine thusly:
On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:18 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant
Edwards
did opine thusly:
A recent update seems to have
On 2011-06-08, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:43 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Grant
Edwards
# Do we allow any started service in the runlevel to satisfy the
dependency # or do we want all of them regardless of state? For example,
if net.eth0
4 matches
Mail list logo
