mgmt patch2:
http://www.a-s-k.com.hk/~gaoyan/heartbeat-1024-translation.patch
Signed-off-by: Yan Gao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
It's just a translation for the new pengine parameter of
"start-failure-is-fatal";-)
--
Yan Gao
China R&D Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+86 10 65339229
No
mgmt patch1:
http://www.a-s-k.com.hk/~gaoyan/heartbeat-1024-ms-default.patch
Signed-off-by: Yan Gao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
I forgot to remove the default settings of "notify" and
"globally_unique" for master_slave from attlist when they were moved
into "meta_attributes".
--
Yan Gao
C
Hi
OK.
I exclude the check of the unique parameter.
I intend to make only the check of the required parameter a patch.
> > That doesn't strike me as good. A popup warning the user, but with the
> > option to override it (continue, re-edit) seems better.
> Yes, using the "confirmbox" with options
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 12:06 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > + def check_unique_params(rsc, meta, paraname=None, dspmsg=True) :
> > + if meta != None :
> > + names = []
> > +
> > + if paraname == None :
> > + target_rsc = rsc
> > +
>
> And indeed, the cluster does come up - without a node. A more
accurate
> summation is that "a single node in the cluster doesn't come up". So,
> the _cluster_ does recover from this error. It just does it without
> that node. So, service is not interrupted.
>
At the end of the day then,
On 2007-10-23T16:06:58, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Getting to a single RPM spec file is not a stupid idea. I've taken some
> of the code from your specfile, and some from the CentOS and Fedora
> specfiles and combined them into one specfile.
I we still disagree about the basic p
On 2007-10-23T15:42:03, David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. "of our bugs" -> "of the Linux/32bit subset of bugs".
I agree with most of your points, but I need to make a distinction here.
;-) At least x86-32 and x86-64 are considered, and across a considerable
range of distributions.
(Inter
That is what I thought, we will have a go a producing something
reasonable and post them back to the list,
Thanks,
Simon
Simon Talbot MEng, ACGI
(Chief Engineer)
Tel: 020 3161 6001
Fax: 020 3161 6011
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2007-10-22T12:03:32, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> actually debian does need to be in its current location - which is why
>> i thought to ask :-)
>
> Why?
>
> And maybe a symlink would suffice, if debian insists? (Not that it
> matters, it just mig
Simon Talbot wrote:
> All,
>
> Does anyone know of any Quagga/Zebra OCF Scripts in development/mature,
> if not I will put some proper effort into making some decent ones?
We have some for one specific special case, but I'm not aware of any
more general ones.
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTE
Graham, Simon wrote:
>> On 2007-10-19T21:57:17, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://old.linux-
>> foundation.org/developer_bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1732
>>> for some discussion on communication interfaces.
>> "discussion" means "the current deficits are by design" ;-)
>>
>
>
David Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>> On 2007-10-18T13:07:45, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Quick question, does anyone know if the pkg and port directories need
>>> to live in their current location?
>>>
>>> If not, I'm considering moving them t
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> that is a good suggestion, I like the principle.
Thanks for the acknowledgement and reply, Lars.
> A central build service such as provided by the openSUSE project has the
> advantage of tighter control over what is actually compile
Hi
Thank you for the comment.
I review this patch.
Regard,
Hideo YAMAUCHI
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Yan Gao
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:21 PM
> To: High-Availability Linux Development List
> Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev] [
Hi
I understood the meaning of a unique parameter by mistake.
I review this patch.
Regard,
Hideo YAMAUCHI
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lars
> Marowsky-Bree
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:07 PM
> To: High-Availability Linux Deve
Hi
I see.
After the format of the patch is changed, I sends it.
Regard,
Hideo YAMAUCHI
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lars
> Marowsky-Bree
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:08 PM
> To: High-Availability Linux Development List
> Subj
Hi
I see.
A blank password is not checked.
The changed patch is contributed again.
Regard,
Hideo YAMAUCHI
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lars
> Marowsky-Bree
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 7:09 PM
> To: High-Availability Linux Deve
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 09:58 +0900, HIDEO YAMAUCHI wrote:
> This patch revises two next problems.
>
> 1)The existence of a required parameter is not checked.
> 2)The repetition of a unique parameter is not checked.
It makes sense.Though I think users should be told which parameter is
required and
On 2007-10-23T10:50:36, HIDEO YAMAUCHI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wrote a patch to the problem that a message was not displayed by login
> failure. (see attached)
> This patch revises next problems.
>
> 1)Error message is not displayed in the case of a blank a user name.(or
> p
On 2007-10-23T10:34:44, HIDEO YAMAUCHI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1)When there is the resource that there is a problem in metadata, the
> resource addition dialog is not
> displayed.
> With this patch, only a problem resource is excluded, and a dialog is
> displayed.
>
> 2)Even if there is
On 2007-10-23T09:58:03, HIDEO YAMAUCHI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
thanks for the patch!
Content-Description: 3121551911-patch-1.txt
> *** haclient.py.in2007-10-22 16:44:40.0 +0900
> --- ./patch/haclient.py.in.128-1292007-10-22 16:39:51.0 +0900
> ***
> ***
21 matches
Mail list logo
