On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:13:36PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 01:40:27 -0700, Josh Triplett
j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
I am writing a systemd service file for a daemon (ntopng) and I would
like to know what you think is the best way to load some
On 08/18/2014 01:36 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The upstream source *can* be changed and improved for everyone.
Truth, but not always practical. If I was going to fix all the defects
of software I package, I don't think I'd have enough time to sleep even
one hour per night.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 08/18/2014 01:36 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
The upstream source *can* be changed and improved for everyone.
Truth, but not always practical. If I was going to fix all the defects
of software I package, I don't think I'd have enough time to sleep even
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, Marc Haber wrote:
Please. The attitute of requiring Debian maintainers to modify
upstream software instead of having simple two-line extension to an
init script is really unfriendly. Why do only systemd friends keep
recommending this?
Using my sysvinit hat, I've always
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:31:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
More generally (and this part is not pointed at Thomas), I realize it's
become de rigueur in any thread about systemd to reply to hm, you could
consider getting a dog with WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL MY KITTENS?!?!?,
but seriously
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:31:37 -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
wrote:
could we tone down the assumption that people with
differing preferences want to break everything you do? It's just a few
additional options.
And others removed. Or do you actually claims that the systemd
migration didn't
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de (2014-08-18):
And others removed. Or do you actually claims that the systemd
migration didn't actually break things? Not all of them, but a
noticeable number.
(I don't think Russ claimed anything along those lines, no.)
Anyway: things get broken, bugs
Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:14:33 -0500, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org
wrote:
Why a requirement to not improve upstream? Ideally, the Debian patches
for a piece of software should trend to zero over time, as fixes make
their way upstream.
Imagine an upstream author
Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
I am writing a systemd service file for a daemon (ntopng) and I would
like to know what you think is the best way to load some
configuration.
The ntopng daemon takes multiple interfaces in the format of multiple
-i command-line options. For example.
ntopng -i eth0
On 08/17/2014 11:51 AM, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a systemd service file for a daemon (ntopng) and I would
like to know what you think is the best way to load some
configuration.
The ntopng daemon takes multiple interfaces in the format of multiple
-i command-line options.
Am 17.08.2014 11:38, schrieb Thomas Goirand:
How about teaching systemd that script is sometimes necessary? It's
annoying to write a wrapper, because then, it does a fork to start the
daemon, so the PID changes. Has this been reported upstream? If yes,
what's upstream opinion about it?
I
Am 17.08.2014 05:51, schrieb Ludovico Cavedon:
Hi,
I am writing a systemd service file for a daemon (ntopng) and I would
like to know what you think is the best way to load some
configuration.
The ntopng daemon takes multiple interfaces in the format of multiple
-i command-line options.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 01:40:27 -0700, Josh Triplett
j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
I am writing a systemd service file for a daemon (ntopng) and I would
like to know what you think is the best way to load some
configuration.
The ntopng daemon takes multiple interfaces in
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:05:13 +0200, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org
wrote:
But yeah, such wrapper scripts should be avoided if possible and native
mechanisms used.
Having read quite of system docs in the last weeks to find a way to
key /etc/crypttab keyscript functionality back, I have found that
On 17/08/14 10:38, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I had the same problem as you describe above, even a bit more
complicated because, in what we did, /etc/default/file sometimes
doesn't exist (it's not mandatory in what we did).
EnvironmentFile takes precedence over Environment, and EnvironmentFile
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:17:21 +0200, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org
wrote:
I also happen to notice, that you use a ENABLED=1 flag.
It would be a good idea to deprecate that as well and remove that.
We have better mechanisms nowadays to enable/disable SysV init scripts
(and systemd service files).
On Aug 17, Ludovico Cavedon cave...@debian.org wrote:
2) instead of doing Exec=ntopng, Exec a script that does the mangling
and then execs ntopng.
If you cannot improve the software enough then this is the best choice.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Aug 17, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Does Debian no longer care about easy updates, or have we accepted
that updating to jessie will be a nightmare anyway and recommend
reinstallation instead?
Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer.
Quite a number of packages also
On Aug 17, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Please. The attitute of requiring Debian maintainers to modify
upstream software instead of having simple two-line extension to an
init script is really unfriendly. Why do only systemd friends keep
recommending this?
Maybe because the
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Quite a number of packages also refrain from starting the daemon on an
unconfigured newly installed package until the user has configured it.
I guess that this needs to be replaced by native mechanisms (i.e.
implemented as a patch to the upstream
Hi,
3) Teach ntopng to understand /etc/ntopng.conf natively and migrate the
settings there.
4) Teach ntopng to automatically detect the available network devices on
the system (including new ones that show up dynamically) and
automatically handle all of them unless configured to do
On 17/08/14 12:48, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 17, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
It is not
always possible to come with a working default configuration or to
build one in postinst.
If unconfigured software really cannot fail cleanly then the package can
install it without
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 13:48:44 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Aug 17, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Does Debian no longer care about easy updates, or have we accepted
that updating to jessie will be a nightmare anyway and recommend
reinstallation instead?
Yes, I
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 13:14:27 +0100, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org
if ! [ -e /etc/foo.conf ]
then
echo -n (not starting, you need to create /etc/foo.conf)
return 0
fi
if ! grep '^important-option' foo.conf;
looks like a rather common idiom.
Greetings
Marc
--
Marco wrote:
On Aug 17, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Please. The attitute of requiring Debian maintainers to modify
upstream software instead of having simple two-line extension to an
init script is really unfriendly. Why do only systemd friends keep
recommending this?
Maybe
Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de writes:
Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
3) Teach ntopng to understand /etc/ntopng.conf natively and migrate the
settings there.
4) Teach ntopng to automatically detect the available network devices
on the system (including new ones that
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 10:36:22 -0700, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org
wrote:
It's good to be aware of the option to improve the upstream source so that
packaging it is easier and so that it works better for everyone with less
configuration.
I find packaging easier when I work around a limitation in
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:44:15PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 17, Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
Please. The attitute of requiring Debian maintainers to modify
upstream software instead of having simple two-line extension to an
init script is really unfriendly. Why
Josh,
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
3) Teach ntopng to understand /etc/ntopng.conf natively and migrate the
settings there.
yes, that would be an option. I forgot to add the requirement without
patching upstream code :)
4) Teach ntopng to
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Marc Haber
mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 12:17:21 +0200, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org
wrote:
I also happen to notice, that you use a ENABLED=1 flag.
It would be a good idea to deprecate that as well and remove that.
We have better
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:48:40PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
3) Teach ntopng to understand /etc/ntopng.conf natively and migrate the
settings there.
yes, that would be an option. I forgot to add the
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:48:40PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
3) Teach ntopng to understand /etc/ntopng.conf natively and migrate the
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 09:24:33PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 08:48:40PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Josh Triplett j...@joshtriplett.org
wrote:
3)
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 23:14:33 -0500, Josh Triplett
j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
Why a requirement to not improve upstream? Ideally, the Debian patches
for a piece of software should trend to zero over time, as fixes make
their way upstream.
Imagine an upstream author having the cooperation level
Hi,
I am writing a systemd service file for a daemon (ntopng) and I would
like to know what you think is the best way to load some
configuration.
The ntopng daemon takes multiple interfaces in the format of multiple
-i command-line options. For example.
ntopng -i eth0 -i wlan0
Currently the
35 matches
Mail list logo
