Hi All,
I contribute my last patch.(patch3)
This is a patch for the sources which applied patch 1.
It is the patch which output the details of the error in log.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Tue, 2011/6/7, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I revised the first patch.
> P
Hi All,
I revised the first patch.
Please confirm contents.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Tue, 2011/6/7, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
> Hi Raoul,
>
> Thank you for comment.
>
> > i think we could safely do the "kill -s 0" for *any*
> > version and call "postfix status" only if
Florian/Team
Please find an updated version for the 'lxc resource agent'
As Florian pointed out, I had not properly initialised/set the new
"use_screen" parameter.
The attached file includes that correction.
PS (OK I'm a complete newbie and I know this should be obvious but) I
had attempted to
Hi Raoul,
Thank you for comment.
> i think we could safely do the "kill -s 0" for *any*
> version and call "postfix status" only if available.
I think so.
However, I do not know a lot about postfix so.
I want the opinion of the detailed person.
> btw. quickly looking at your patch, i spotted 1
Hi Dejan,
Thank you for comment.
> In the latest version of ocf-shellfuncs there is some support for
> version checks.
I did not know that there was the check handling of version in new
ocf-shellfuncs.
I renew a patch to use the processing.
Thanks.
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/6/6, Dejan
Hi Raoul,
> Hideo-san, i updated your postfix.patch2 the way i would improve it.
> any objections?
No.
Thanks!
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/6/6, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
> Hideo-san, i updated your postfix.patch2 the way i would improve it.
> any objections?
>
> cheers,
>
Dejan Muhamedagic schrieb am 04.04.2011 14:35:34:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 04:15:16PM +0100, alexander.kra...@basf.com
wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dejan Muhamedagic schrieb am 18.03.2011 14:31:08:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 04:58:25PM +0100, Corvus Corax wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IP
Hideo-san, i updated your postfix.patch2 the way i would improve it.
any objections?
cheers,
raoul
--
DI (FH) Raoul Bhatia M.Sc. email. r.bha...@ipax.at
Technischer Leiter
IPAX - Aloy Bhatia Hava OG w
Hi Hideo-san!
On 06/06/2011 04:51 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I send a patch in conjunction with the status processing.
> It is made the following modifications.
>
> * Carry out status processing in a version judgment
i think we could safely do the "kill -s 0" for *any*
On 06/06/2011 05:08 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> The next patch supports a loop of the waiting of the start processing
> successively.
> The start processing revised it like other resource agents to wait on for
> start.
hi!
personally, i would do the "sleep 1" at the beginning as, in
Hi Hideo-san,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:36:01PM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry
>
> +if [ ${ver_str[0]} -le 2 -a ${ver_str[1]} -le 5 ]; then
>
> I missed.
>
> +if [ ${ver_str[0]} -lt 2 -o ${ver_str[0]} -eq 2 -a ${ver_str[1]} -lt 5
> ]; then
In the la
11 matches
Mail list logo
