>> received TERM and "wants down". I tried
>> exec init 6
>> instead of
>> init 6
>> and, sure enough, it goes down in about 1s or less. No time to see the
>> hint of a message!
>> Is this how you do it? Strange that it is not mentioned in
es show that the other gettys are gone and getty-1
> received TERM and "wants down". I tried
> exec init 6
> instead of
> init 6
> and, sure enough, it goes down in about 1s or less. No time to see the
> hint of a message!
> Is this how you do it? Strange tha
out 1s or less. No time to see the
hint of a message!
Is this how you do it? Strange that it is not mentioned in the runit
docs. Or is there a more normal way? (Or maybe it's too obvious for most
runit users:))
>
> The way I do networks as runit services...
>
> 1) I wrote a little C
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:55:42 + (WET)
Jorge Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:01:06 + (WET)
> > Jorge Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm using runit
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, TheOldFellow wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:01:06 + (WET)
> Jorge Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm using runit as alternative to sysvinit. Booting is no problem.
>> Rebooting is terribly slow. After issuing "init 6&
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:01:06 + (WET)
Jorge Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using runit as alternative to sysvinit. Booting is no problem.
> Rebooting is terribly slow. After issuing "init 6", a normal-looking
> message appears, concerning services to
I'm using runit as alternative to sysvinit. Booting is no problem.
Rebooting is terribly slow. After issuing "init 6", a normal-looking
message appears, concerning services to stop. Then nothing for a long
time. If I press , I get the shell prompt, and I can do "ls", f
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Barius Drubeck wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I browsed the script but I was unable to identify the
>> relevant part.
>
> The forced check after x mounts or y days is a behaviour of fsck, not
> of the checkfs script itself. The checkfs script just runs fsck at
> boot time.
>
> Assuming
On Saturday 17 February 2007 20:49, Jorge Almeida wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, TheOldFellow wrote:
> >> One question: my current distro (gentoo) forces a fs check after
> >> so many days or so many mounts, which seems a prudent idea.
> >> Should I try to adapt the corresponding gentoo checkfs scri
up. Is this right?
>> BTW, what if some of these scripts fails?
>> And what about /etc/init.d/kerneld start and /etc/init.d/rmnologin ?
>> (http://smarden.org/runit/replaceinit.html, Step 5)
>
> LFS doesn't have those scripts AFAIK. I look at tasks as either
Indeed, they
Jorge Almeida wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, TheOldFellow wrote:
>
>> Jorge Almeida wrote:
>>> I'm trying to understand how to use runit as substitute for sysvinit.
>> What I now do is to build LFS or CLFS according to the book, but omiting
>> sysvinit and s
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, TheOldFellow wrote:
> Jorge Almeida wrote:
>> I'm trying to understand how to use runit as substitute for sysvinit.
>> The file hints/ATTACHMENTS/build-with-runit/build-with-runit-scripts.txt
>> dates from 2004. Can anybody elaborate on this? (I me
Jorge Almeida wrote:
> I'm trying to understand how to use runit as substitute for sysvinit.
> The file hints/ATTACHMENTS/build-with-runit/build-with-runit-scripts.txt
> dates from 2004. Can anybody elaborate on this? (I mean, is it
> deprecated or just lacking a maintainer?)
I'm trying to understand how to use runit as substitute for sysvinit.
The file hints/ATTACHMENTS/build-with-runit/build-with-runit-scripts.txt
dates from 2004. Can anybody elaborate on this? (I mean, is it
deprecated or just lacking a maintainer?) The hint says the author
no longer supports
14 matches
Mail list logo
