On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 05:14:52PM +1100, Andrew Thomson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if there is a vserver 1.29 diff against the latest
> whitebox kernel: 2.4.21-20.ELsmp ?
not that I know of ... (well I do not even know whitebox)
there is a slightly deficient patch against the RHEL
kernel, y
Hello
I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the
maintainer.
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:35:18 + (UTC)
> Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I gmane.linux.vserver, skrev Herbert Poetzl:
> > > On Tue,
Hello
I forward this bugreport that I have got from
Helmut Toplitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that fix a problem
with context misunderstanding at start of a vserver.
It is a quite simple patch and as far as I have tested it works fine.
It is applied to the debian version of util-vserver.
For full in
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:09:29PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the
> maintainer.
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:35:18 + (UTC)
> > Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTEC
Hello
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:28:35PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:09:29PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the
> > maintainer.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Björn Steinbri
* Herbert Poetzl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> let me ask two questions here, and please don't get me wrong:
>
> a) _who_ is testing the debian vserver tools/kernel patches?
Probably the maintainer.
> b) _why_ doesn't the maintainer (you) talk a little more with
> the developers (enrico, bj
On 2004.12.21 18:09:29 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the
> maintainer.
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:35:18 + (UTC)
> > Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2004.12.21 18:19:26 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> I forward this bugreport that I have got from
> Helmut Toplitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> that fix a problem
> with context misunderstanding at start of a vserver.
>
> It is a quite simple patch and as far as I have tested it works fine.
>
Hello
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:25:35PM +0100, Bjoern Steinbrink wrote:
*SNIP*
> > Some analysis:
> >
> > /usr/sbin/vserver script:
> >
> > Context of new vserver is set
> > - by /etc/vservers/name.conf
> > - or by /var/run/vservers/name.ctx
> > - or by the chcontext script itself
> >
> >
On 2004.12.21 20:20:12 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:25:35PM +0100, Bjoern Steinbrink wrote:
> *SNIP*
> > > Some analysis:
> > >
> > > /usr/sbin/vserver script:
> > >
> > > Context of new vserver is set
> > > - by /etc/vservers/name.conf
> > > - or by /var
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Vincenzo Agosto wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 05:45:08PM +0100, Vincenzo Agosto wrote:
Darryl Ross wrote:
Vincenzo Agosto wrote:
| and nothing...
| but ping ftp2.it.debian.org is OK
| Some idea?
I have found th
Hi!
Nice to hear(read) something about the patch.
Maybe I can tell you what I've thougth when coding the patch.
Maybe I'm completely wrong with this.
The basic problem was that 2 different vservers with
dynamic CTXs MAY get the same CTX-Numbers on the
timeline of successive restarts. Never at th
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:44:48PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:28:35PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 06:09:29PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the
> >
You must have another postrouting rule in there. You should flush your
tables and try again, or use -I POSTROUTING to put the new rule first.
These are very standard things that work well, and are unaffected by
linux-vserver.
Run iptables -L -n -t nat -v and you'll see all the rules that are in
th
Liam Helmer wrote:
You must have another postrouting rule in there. You should flush your
tables and try again, or use -I POSTROUTING to put the new rule first.
These are very standard things that work well, and are unaffected by
linux-vserver.
Run iptables -L -n -t nat -v and you'll see all the ru
On 2004.12.21 23:26:06 +0100, Helmut Toplitzer wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Nice to hear(read) something about the patch.
>
> Maybe I can tell you what I've thougth when coding the patch.
> Maybe I'm completely wrong with this.
>
> The basic problem was that 2 different vservers with
> dynamic CTXs MAY get
On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 12:05:30AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
*SNIP*
> > I try to make as little changes as possible, but I need correct issues
> > that happens with debian systems.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > // Ola
>
> okay, let's put aside all this hick-hack and
> start from scratch, without a
Hello
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:01:31PM +0100, Bjoern Steinbrink wrote:
> On 2004.12.21 18:09:29 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I know that this thread is old but I have to answer as I'm the
> > maintainer.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
18 matches
Mail list logo
