Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-27 Thread Florian Lohoff
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:15:39PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 3/25/19 11:41 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:34:34PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / > > > do

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-26 Thread Harald Dunkel
On 3/25/19 11:41 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote: Hi, On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:34:34PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: Hi folks, AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng, probably everything using pidof or

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-25 Thread Florian Lohoff
Hi, On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 01:34:34PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / > do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng, > probably everything using pidof or pidofproc from /lib/lsb/init-\ >

Re: Bug#888743: Debian vs Linux namespaces, NMU lsb-base

2019-03-24 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 24 mars 2019 14:40 +01, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud : >> Wouldn't it break chrooted processes? But mostly, as the whole pattern >> is broken, it seems to be a low-effort solution. > > Vincent: what scenario did you have in mind? For the first part, any daemon chrooting (like HAProxy, lldpd). For the

Re: Bug#888743: Debian vs Linux namespaces, NMU lsb-base

2019-03-24 Thread Didier 'OdyX' Raboud
Le dimanche, 24 mars 2019, 09.42:12 h CET Geert Stappers a écrit : > What would be the harm to the Buster release > if lsb-base got NMU > with > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=888743;filename=ini > t-functions.diff;msg=37 ? I have now uploaded src:lsb to experimental with

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-24 Thread Harald Dunkel
Hi Ondřej, On 3/23/19 2:26 PM, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Hi Harald, > > since you are using non-default init system, I would recommend sending > patches along with your bug reports if you want to get niche things fixed. > I already did. See the bug reports for lsb and opensmtpd. I stumbled over

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces, NMU lsb-base

2019-03-24 Thread Shengjing Zhu
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 4:42 PM Geert Stappers wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:49:09PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 8:41 PM Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / > > > do not care

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces, NMU lsb-base

2019-03-24 Thread Vincent Bernat
❦ 24 mars 2019 09:42 +01, Geert Stappers : > What would be the harm to the Buster release > if lsb-base got NMU > with > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=888743;filename=init-functions.diff;msg=37 > ? Wouldn't it break chrooted processes? But mostly, as the whole

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces, NMU lsb-base

2019-03-24 Thread Geert Stappers
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:49:09PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 8:41 PM Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / > > do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng, > > probably

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-24 Thread Geert Stappers
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 02:26:08PM +0100, Ond??ej Surý wrote: > > On 23 Mar 2019, at 13:34, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / > > do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng, > > probably

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-23 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
hi, > since you are using non-default init system, I would recommend sending > patches along with your bug reports if you want to get niche things fixed. not every package uses systemd yet, for some systemd still calls init scripts which do various kinds of broken things. So thats not

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-23 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Mar 23, Harald Dunkel wrote: > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / > do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng, > probably everything using pidof or pidofproc from /lib/lsb/init-\ > functions). I routinely use containers and namespaces

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-23 Thread Shengjing Zhu
Hi, On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 8:41 PM Harald Dunkel wrote: > > Hi folks, > > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / > do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng, > probably everything using pidof or pidofproc from /lib/lsb/init-\ > functions). > >

Re: Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-23 Thread Ondřej Surý
Hi Harald, since you are using non-default init system, I would recommend sending patches along with your bug reports if you want to get niche things fixed. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý ond...@sury.org > On 23 Mar 2019, at 13:34, Harald Dunkel wrote: > > Hi folks, > > AFAICS there are several

Debian vs Linux namespaces

2019-03-23 Thread Harald Dunkel
Hi folks, AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of / do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng, probably everything using pidof or pidofproc from /lib/lsb/init-\ functions). I noticed that containerization and Linux namespaces are not number one