On 8/11/05, DJ Lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Archaic wrote:
> >
> >> That just seems silly. Warn was much nicer and still allowed things to
> >> proceed.
> >
> >
> > Can we not still warn, but just leave the exit status as '0'. The spec
> > (from the quote given) do
> I believe you are correct, but I'd have to direct this back to Nathan.
> If you want to add it for yourself, it's real easy three
> lines in killproc:
Could you give some line numbers for that patch? :) Sorry, I'm just not
QUITE sure where to put them. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfroms
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Archaic wrote:
>
>> That just seems silly. Warn was much nicer and still allowed things to
>> proceed.
>
>
> Can we not still warn, but just leave the exit status as '0'. The spec
> (from the quote given) doesn't appear to forbid output, it just mandates
> what the exit
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Archaic wrote:
>
>> That just seems silly. Warn was much nicer and still allowed things to
>> proceed.
>
>
> Can we not still warn, but just leave the exit status as '0'. The spec
> (from the quote given) doesn't appear to forbid output, it just mandates
> what the exit
Archaic wrote:
That just seems silly. Warn was much nicer and still allowed things to
proceed.
Can we not still warn, but just leave the exit status as '0'. The spec
(from the quote given) doesn't appear to forbid output, it just mandates
what the exit status should be.
--
http://linuxfro
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:53:13AM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
> *
>
> running "start" on a service already running
> *
>
> running "stop" on a service already stopped or not running
That just seems silly. Warn was much nicer and still allowed things to
proceed.
--
Archaic
Want
> Not now. 3.2.x went after partial LSB-2.1.0 compliancy to ease the
> transition. See below from the spec.
Ah, gotcha. :) Makes sense then. :) Thanks so much for your hard work,
DJ. :)
Dave
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratc
David Fix wrote:
Non-Technical explanation: I actually tested fully (I believe) and it
works!!! :-D
Well that looks better. ;) I'm still wondering, though, why: When I have a
process not running (spamd in this case), and I do a "spamd stop", it still
says, "[ OK ]". :D Shouldn't it say "/
> Non-Technical explanation: I actually tested fully (I believe) and it
> works!!! :-D
Well that looks better. ;) I'm still wondering, though, why: When I have a
process not running (spamd in this case), and I do a "spamd stop", it still
says, "[ OK ]". :D Shouldn't it say "/usr/bin/spamd is
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I believe I've run across a bug in the LFS Bootscripts. It appears to
> me that if the concerned script (I've only tested BLFS scripts, but I
> suppose I could kill the sysklog stuff and try it) is not started, and
> you issue a
>
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/script stat
10 matches
Mail list logo
