On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:19 AM Stanislav Angelovič
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In sd-bus, I guess it is possible to have a one-to-one connection between
> a service and a client, i.e. connection without D-bus daemon), am I right?
> If yes, is there any example (in systemd source tree or elsewhere) of
>
On 18/01/19 2:29 am, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Do, 17.01.19 07:05, Amish (anon.am...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 16/01/19 11:52 pm, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mi, 16.01.19 09:46, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
Jérémy ROSEN wrote on 16/01/2019 08:24:
yes... adding a "this is
Hi,
In sd-bus, I guess it is possible to have a one-to-one connection between a
service and a client, i.e. connection without D-bus daemon), am I right? If
yes, is there any example (in systemd source tree or elsewhere) of sd-bus
one-to-one communication usage that I could look at for inspiration
On 1/17/19 2:42 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Do, 17.01.19 14:35, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
On 1/17/19 2:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Do, 17.01.19 12:38, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
it defaults to YES and the whole discussions as that changed
On Do, 17.01.19 07:05, Amish (anon.am...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 16/01/19 11:52 pm, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mi, 16.01.19 09:46, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
> >
> > > Jérémy ROSEN wrote on 16/01/2019 08:24:
> > > > yes... adding a "this is the start of the freeze" tag
On Do, 17.01.19 14:35, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
> On 1/17/19 2:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Do, 17.01.19 12:38, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > > it defaults to YES and the whole discussions as that changed where
> > > > > about
> > > > >
On 1/17/19 2:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Do, 17.01.19 12:38, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
it defaults to YES and the whole discussions as that changed where about
nohup'd processes long ago
Changing it to "no"... I'll let you know if this fixes things or not.
On Do, 17.01.19 12:38, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
> > > it defaults to YES and the whole discussions as that changed where about
> > > nohup'd processes long ago
> >
> > Changing it to "no"... I'll let you know if this fixes things or not.
> >
>
> Actually, as it turns out the
Lennart,
I've some homework to do based on your feedback and will report back. As
I understand it, I need to do this in C as well.
Regards,
eric
On 1/15/19 12:49 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Di, 15.01.19 11:23, Eric DeVolder (eric.devol...@oracle.com) wrote:
Systemd-devel,
Below is a
On 1/17/19 12:09 PM, Christopher Cox wrote:
On 1/17/19 11:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.01.19 um 18:51 schrieb Christopher Cox:
On 1/17/19 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.01.19 um 18:17 schrieb Christopher Cox:
On 1/17/19 11:01 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Hmm, what kind of
On 1/17/19 11:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.01.19 um 18:51 schrieb Christopher Cox:
On 1/17/19 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.01.19 um 18:17 schrieb Christopher Cox:
On 1/17/19 11:01 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Hmm, what kind of processes are you missing? user session stuff? How
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:54 PM Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 17.01.19 um 18:51 schrieb Christopher Cox:
> > On 1/17/19 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 17.01.19 um 18:17 schrieb Christopher Cox:
> >>> On 1/17/19 11:01 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Hmm, what kind of processes
On 1/17/19 11:59 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Do, 17.01.19 11:17, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
In my case, my script rolls through the currently running processes, looking
for certain ones, determines listening port (ss) and gets the
On Do, 17.01.19 11:17, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
> > > [Install]
> > > WantedBy=multi-user.target
> > >
> > > In my case, my script rolls through the currently running processes,
> > > looking
> > > for certain ones, determines listening port (ss) and gets the time the
> > >
Am 17.01.19 um 18:51 schrieb Christopher Cox:
> On 1/17/19 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 17.01.19 um 18:17 schrieb Christopher Cox:
>>> On 1/17/19 11:01 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Hmm, what kind of processes are you missing? user session stuff? How
do you shut down? Note
On 1/17/19 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.01.19 um 18:17 schrieb Christopher Cox:
On 1/17/19 11:01 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Hmm, what kind of processes are you missing? user session stuff? How
do you shut down? Note that display managers are likely to terminate
the user sessions
Am 17.01.19 um 18:17 schrieb Christopher Cox:
> On 1/17/19 11:01 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> Hmm, what kind of processes are you missing? user session stuff? How
>> do you shut down? Note that display managers are likely to terminate
>> the user sessions first, and only initiate system
On 1/17/19 11:01 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Do, 17.01.19 10:18, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
On 1/17/19 5:50 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
With that you can now put together a unit that is terminated
relatively early on during shutdown: just make it
On Do, 17.01.19 10:18, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
> On 1/17/19 5:50 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > With that you can now put together a unit that is terminated
> > relatively early on during shutdown: just make it
> > "After=multi-user.target graphical.target default.target",
Mailing List SVR wrote on 16/01/2019 21:03:
> Il 16/01/19 19:24, Lennart Poettering ha scritto:
>> On Mi, 16.01.19 09:20, Mailing List SVR (li...@svrinformatica.it) wrote:
>>
>>> Well, this command will make the sd devices readable inside the
>>> container on
>>> centos 7 too
>>>
>>> echo 'b 8:*
On 1/17/19 5:50 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
With that you can now put together a unit that is terminated
relatively early on during shutdown: just make it
"After=multi-user.target graphical.target default.target", so that it
gets activated at boot very late, and thus deactivated at shutdown
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 07:18:15PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mi, 16.01.19 01:06, Christian Hesse (l...@eworm.de) wrote:
>
> > Lennart Poettering on Tue, 2019/01/15 20:00:
> > > Note that we don't branch releases right now. Instead when we are
> > > getting closer to a release we
Am 17.01.19 um 17:00 schrieb Christopher Cox:
> On 1/16/19 11:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> that all is not really new and was not better with sysvinit, it only was
>> slow enough, full of sleep/usleep hacks and so most of the time by luck
>> worked but with no guarantess anyways
>
> What I
On 1/16/19 11:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
that all is not really new and was not better with sysvinit, it only was
slow enough, full of sleep/usleep hacks and so most of the time by luck
worked but with no guarantess anyways
What I said it that synchronous execution of a script was possible
On Mi, 16.01.19 22:44, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
> On 01/16/2019 12:51 PM, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
> > If you want to run it early in the shutdown process, then keep
> > DefaultDependencies=yes, in which case it will run before the base
> > dependencies start to get
On Mi, 16.01.19 12:40, Christopher Cox (c...@endlessnow.com) wrote:
> I need to be able to execute a script before anything gets shutdown. That
> is, when somebody does a "reboot", "shutdown" or "poweroff", I need this
> script to run first, and for it to finish before everything gets
> whacked.
26 matches
Mail list logo
