Graeme Fowler via Exim-users writes:
> On 17 Oct 2018, at 12:38, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users
> wrote:
[...]
>
> frequent queue runners, I reckon. Changing the fork delivery model is
> not likely to be something that happens quickly at all!
I never suggest that. :) L. Poettering did.
KJ
--
On 17 Oct 2018, at 12:38, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users
wrote:
> Well. I was alway teach to deliver "simplest" not working example. So I
> did. And this example can be seen as unimportant.
>
> The real use case are "oneshot" services started by timers[1]. So far
> people still use cron. But when
Graeme Fowler via Exim-users writes:
> On 16 Oct 2018, at 18:03, Ian Zimmerman via Exim-users
> wrote:
>> I think this is a misunderstanding both on the part of Lennart and on
>> the part of Graeme.
>
> I’m not so sure that it is; I was addressing the very specific example given.
Well. I was
On 16 Oct 2018, at 18:03, Ian Zimmerman via Exim-users
wrote:
> I think this is a misunderstanding both on the part of Lennart and on
> the part of Graeme.
I’m not so sure that it is; I was addressing the very specific example given.
> The example systemd unit shown by the OP was just _a
On 2018-10-16 15:40, Graeme Fowler via Exim-users wrote:
> > I agreed that systemd should allow exim to work on current rules. But I
> > don know how can I argue to Lennart Poettering to change his mind.
>
> You can't :)
>
> What you've shown us is (in my opinion) an incredibly niche case which
On 16 Oct 2018, at 14:56, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users
wrote:
> I do not know if it is clear: this is not my words, neither I agreed
> with them (please note, that I opened this issue on github.)
...and you have a workaround in systemd via the KillMode switch, or the various
timeout options. Or
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users writes:
> On 16/10/2018 12:44, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users wrote:
>> Jeremy Harris via Exim-users writes:
>>
>> [..]
>>> It does seem somewhat... arrogant of systemd to assume that
>>> when a process it has started terminates, any of its children
>> Ahem. :)
>>
>>
On 16/10/2018 12:44, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users wrote:
> Jeremy Harris via Exim-users writes:
>
> [..]
>> It does seem somewhat... arrogant of systemd to assume that
>> when a process it has started terminates, any of its children
> Ahem. :)
>
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/10299
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users writes:
[..]
> It does seem somewhat... arrogant of systemd to assume that
> when a process it has started terminates, any of its children
Ahem. :)
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/10299
KJ
--
http://wolnelektury.pl/wesprzyj/teraz/
P-K4
--
## List
On 05/10/2018 19:11, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users wrote:
> 1. exim forks and creates background process to deliver mail
> 2. systemd, after main process exits, kill all remaining proceses, so
> ...
> 3. background exim process are killed during delivery, and message remains in
> queue.
>
> I think
Graeme Fowler via Exim-users writes:
> Howdy
>
> Firstly - please subscribe to the list (or post from your subscribed address)
> so we don’t have to keep allowing your emails out of the mod queue.
Sorry, I have read list via gmane. Now I am subscribed.
>
> On 5 Oct 2018, at 19:11, Kamil Jońca
Howdy
Firstly - please subscribe to the list (or post from your subscribed address)
so we don’t have to keep allowing your emails out of the mod queue.
On 5 Oct 2018, at 19:11, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users wrote:
> After discussion on systemd list we have conclusions:
>
Jeremy Harris via Exim-users writes:
> On 24/09/2018 14:25, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users wrote:
>> assume we have service file /etc/systemd/system/mailtest.service:
>>
>> --8<---cut here---start->8---
>> [Unit]
>> Description="Test maili"
>> [Service]
>>
On 24/09/2018 14:25, Kamil Jońca via Exim-users wrote:
> assume we have service file /etc/systemd/system/mailtest.service:
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> [Unit]
> Description="Test maili"
> [Service]
> #User=kjonca
> NoNewPrivileges=false
> Type=oneshot
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
