Lennart Poettering writes:
> On Mo, 09.05.22 19:13, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@fastmail.com) wrote:
>
>> >> 3. decide where to resolve names based on domain and existence of ipsec
>> >> or openvpn tunnel.
>> >
>> > Sounds like a job for the resolved domain routing logic, which already
>> > exists?
>>
On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 08:44:27 +0300, Yuri Kanivetsky wrote:
> The one running on the host is 215-17 (Debian 8).
That's very old. As far as most of the Debian project is concerned,
Debian 8 reached EOL in mid 2018. There is a separate Debian LTS team
which picks up security support when the main
On Mo, 09.05.22 20:00, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
> Kamil Jońca writes:
>
>
> > Let's see.
> > from SYSTEMD.NETWORK(5)
> > ...
> > IPMasquerade=
> >Configures IP masquerading for the network interface. If
> >enabled, packets forwarded from the network interface
Hi system-devl team,
Nice to meet you.
I am having trouble to boot the unified-kernel image when using systemd's EFI
stub loader, I wanted to check in this community if I can get some help to fix
this problem.
Here are steps I followed:
I am using Debian package versions while checking this.
On Mo, 09.05.22 19:13, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@fastmail.com) wrote:
> >> 3. decide where to resolve names based on domain and existence of ipsec
> >> or openvpn tunnel.
> >
> > Sounds like a job for the resolved domain routing logic, which already
> > exists?
>
> Not quite. When I asked previously I
On 08.05.2022 20:19, Kamil Jońca wrote:
> I have question about custom options in network interface definitions
> and passing it via command line.
> In currend Debian tools
>
> (https://manpages.debian.org/buster/ifupdown/interfaces.5.en.html)
> there is a possibility to define custom option and
On Mo, 09.05.22 23:43, Yuri Kanivetsky (yuri.kanivet...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. It becomes more verbose, but it still seems
> like `systemd` fails to notice that `gnome-keyring` exited:
>
> May 09 17:52:47 cb6d1c84f84e systemd[106]: gnome-keyring.service:
Hello.
On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 08:16:48PM -0400, Yeongjin Kwon
wrote:
> I'm trying to override the parent slice of a certain slice unit so I can
> reorganize the cgroup hierarchy.
I'm wondering is the certain slice or its parent any of the systemd
implicit slices
On Di, 10.05.22 12:00, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
> > The engine is decided at build time, i.e. can be either iptables or
> > nftables.
>
> But there are two kind of "nat' in *tables suites: 1.masquerade or 2.snat.
It uses DNAT or MASQUERADE.
> Especially what wyould be equivalent of:
>
On Do, 05.05.22 19:12, Yeongjin Kwon (yeongjink...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 11:17 AM Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > On Do, 05.05.22 10:44, Yeongjin Kwon (yeongjink...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 4:03 AM Lennart Poettering
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Do, 05.05.22 04:41, Yuri Kanivetsky (yuri.kanivet...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This might be not a systemd issue. But the behavior is weird, and I'm not
> sure.
>
> I'm trying to run GNOME in a docker container. And gnome-keyring
> fails to start:
To my knowledge Docker is not capable of
On Di, 10.05.22 08:44, Yuri Kanivetsky (yuri.kanivet...@gmail.com) wrote:
> The one that produces the messages is 249.11 (that is running in a
> docker container):
>
> https://packages.ubuntu.com/jammy/systemd
>
> The one running on the host is 215-17 (Debian 8).
that's ancient... i figure this
On Di, 10.05.22 17:59, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
> Maybe I was not clear.
> I have ("internal") interfaces qemu1 and qemu2. and interface eth ("external")
> I wat to nat traffic from interface qemu1 via eth , but I do not want
> nat traffic from interface qemu2 via eth2/
>
> How to
Lennart Poettering writes:
> On Di, 10.05.22 12:00, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
>
>> > The engine is decided at build time, i.e. can be either iptables or
>> > nftables.
>>
>> But there are two kind of "nat' in *tables suites: 1.masquerade or 2.snat.
>
> It uses DNAT or MASQUERADE.
>
>>
On Di, 10.05.22 17:46, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> > On Di, 10.05.22 12:00, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
> >
> >> > The engine is decided at build time, i.e. can be either iptables or
> >> > nftables.
> >>
> >> But there are two kind of "nat' in
Lennart Poettering writes:
> On Mo, 09.05.22 20:00, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
>
>> Kamil Jońca writes:
>>
>>
>> > Let's see.
>> > from SYSTEMD.NETWORK(5)
>> > ...
>> > IPMasquerade=
>> >Configures IP masquerading for the network interface. If
>> >enabled, packets
Lennart Poettering writes:
> On Di, 10.05.22 17:59, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
>
>> Maybe I was not clear.
>> I have ("internal") interfaces qemu1 and qemu2. and interface eth
>> ("external")
>> I wat to nat traffic from interface qemu1 via eth , but I do not want
>> nat traffic from
> The hint about non-empty cgroup + gap in PID sequence [1] suggest that
> the parent and child are not the only two processes of the service.
The gap in PIDs can be explained by a lot of processes starting at
that moment. In that particular case:
```
May 09 17:52:47 cb6d1c84f84e systemd[106]:
On Di, 10.05.22 18:29, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
> Lennart Poettering writes:
>
> > On Di, 10.05.22 17:59, Kamil Jońca (kjo...@op.pl) wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe I was not clear.
> >> I have ("internal") interfaces qemu1 and qemu2. and interface eth
> >> ("external")
> >> I wat to nat traffic
19 matches
Mail list logo
