On 01/22/2015 01:33 AM, Avery Payne wrote:
This brings to mind the discussion from Jan. 8 about ./provides,
where a defining a daemon implies:
* the service that it actually provides (SMTP, IMAP, database, etc.);
think of it as the doing, the piece that performs work
* a data transport
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:24:58 +0100
Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
Hi Laurent,
So you mentioned breaking compatibility recently, and I figure that
might be a good time for me to mention something. I'd like to set up
my system around s6, and have been working on this lately.
I'll
On 01/21/15 19:03, Steve Litt wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 18:24:58 +0100
Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
Hi Laurent,
So you mentioned breaking compatibility recently, and I figure that
might be a good time for me to mention something. I'd like to set up
my system around s6, and have
On 1/21/2015 7:19 PM, post-sysv wrote:
I'm not sure what effective and worthwhile ways there are to express
service *relationships*,
however, or what that would exactly entail. I think service conflicts
and service bindings might
be flimsy to express without a formal system, though I don't
On 01/21/2015 06:09 PM, Wayne Marshall wrote:
4) in general, folks here are letting their panties get far too twisted
with the dependency problem. Actual material dependencies are
relatively few and can be easily (and best) accomodated directly in the
runscript of the dependent service. See
