On Thu, 12.07.12 16:00, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote:
+template = unit_name_template(info-name);
+if (!template) {
+free(path);
+
On Thu, 12.07.12 08:43, har...@redhat.com (har...@redhat.com) wrote:
Heya,
Hmm, I'd prefer if we'd still work fine if somebody invokes us with he
controlling TTY on /dev/console, like we did before this patch.
In an attempt to fix this I have now added code that sets SIGHUP to
SIG_IGN on both
On Thu, 12.07.12 08:43, har...@redhat.com (har...@redhat.com) wrote:
From: Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com
Merged! Thanks!
---
src/core/main.c |6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/core/main.c b/src/core/main.c
index 6f6b565..a7172c1 100644
On Thu, 12.07.12 08:44, har...@redhat.com (har...@redhat.com) wrote:
From: Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com
if we don't wait for the pending stopping jobs, the following can
happen:
Hmm, to avoid any further issues like this I have now changed systemd
git to kill all remaining processes (and
Hi,
For some time, I have been working on integration of systemd with
Buildroot [1] which is a set of cross tools to help build bootable
Linux root filesystems aimed at mobile and small portable Linux
applications.
Buildroot's toolchain by default provides runtime environment based on
uclibc [2]
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:19:01AM -0400, Dmitry Golubovsky wrote:
Buildroot's toolchain by default provides runtime environment based on
uclibc [2] which lacks certain functionality systemd depends upon, so
I had to develop some workarounds. In particular, functions like
execvpe,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:19:01AM -0400, Dmitry Golubovsky wrote:
Buildroot's toolchain by default provides runtime environment based on
uclibc [2] which lacks certain functionality systemd depends upon, so
I had to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752774
---
man/systemctl.xml | 33 +++-
src/shared/install.c | 78 +---
src/shared/unit-name.c | 12
src/shared/unit-name.h |1 +
4 files changed, 100 insertions(+),
Hi,
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Wouldn't it be better (and beneficial to others) to implement missing
functionality in uclibc?
I am not a maintainer of uclibc (and not a maintainer of buildroot
either, just a contributor of few packages). I cannot answer this,
sorry.
Kay Sievers wrote:
Looks
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 00:54 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Can you elaborate on this? Would generators work for you?
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Generators
(Sorry for not responding earlier!)
Lennart
Hi Lennart,
I'd like to work on this, because I think it
On Fri, 13.07.12 15:48, Tomasz Torcz (to...@pipebreaker.pl) wrote:
These patches are applicable against the v186 snapshot.
I would like to hear from the systemd dev team whether there is an
interest in uclibc integration; we can work together on finalizing
these patches. If there is no
On Fri, 13.07.12 10:13, Dmitry Golubovsky (golubov...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi,
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Wouldn't it be better (and beneficial to others) to implement missing
functionality in uclibc?
I am not a maintainer of uclibc (and not a maintainer of buildroot
either, just a
On Fri, 13.07.12 16:19, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 00:54 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Can you elaborate on this? Would generators work for you?
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Generators
(Sorry for not responding
13 matches
Mail list logo
