On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 06:48:48PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
On 09/08/2014 01:46 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were various problems introduced by the series on FD passing.
The path for the socket was not created, the socket was not removed
before binding it, etc. Let's see if it's any
On 09/08/2014 01:46 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were various problems introduced by the series on FD passing.
The path for the socket was not created, the socket was not removed
before binding it, etc. Let's see if it's any better this time.
Resolves:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:46:34AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were various problems introduced by the series on FD passing.
The path for the socket was not created, the socket was not removed
before binding it, etc. Let's see if it's any better this time.
Resolves:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:46:34AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were various problems introduced by the series on FD passing.
The path for the socket was not created, the socket was not removed
before binding it, etc. Let's see if it's any better this time.
Resolves:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:33:05PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:46:34AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were various problems introduced by the series on FD passing.
The path for the socket was not created, the socket was not removed
before binding it, etc.
There were various problems introduced by the series on FD passing.
The path for the socket was not created, the socket was not removed
before binding it, etc. Let's see if it's any better this time.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927369
Resolves:
