On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
>> I didn't ask why we need local.d. I asked why we need to run it LAST,
>> and why we need to run all of that other stuff LAST? Of course, the
>> reality is that we aren't running all of that stuff last since exactly
>> one script can RE
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:55:44 -0600 William Hubbs wrote:
> Several issues not related to the original have been brought up, which I
> will briefly respond to, but let's try to move back to the original
> issue I brought up, which is whether the early loop solver should break
> loops or just output me
Hello,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:28:59 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:59:22 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Andrew Savchenko
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 1. There are multiple services having
On December 4, 2014 10:31:30 AM PST, Andrew Savchenko
wrote:
>As for later loop detector, it may break need dependency. Current
>need dependency for iptables is fsck <- localmount <- iptables, so
>it is still unlikely that your daemon will be caught in such
>need-only loop. Though on author's req
Several issues not related to the original have been brought up, which I
will briefly respond to, but let's try to move back to the original
issue I brought up, which is whether the early loop solver should break
loops or just output messages about them.
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 07:12:58PM +0300, A
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:37:24 -0800 Christopher Head wrote:
> On December 4, 2014 8:12:58 AM PST, Andrew Savchenko
> wrote:
> >
> >Yes. But booting as much services as possible is even more
> >preferable, especially when box is remote.
>
> Are you sure booting most, but not all, services in a loo
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Dmitry Yu Okunev wrote:
>
> I think almost everybody here agree that Detector is really required in
> OpenRC. It's quite definitely that sysadmin should be able to see any
> error situation on his/her machine.
No argument at all with this.
> I can understand that
One more ¢…
On 12/04/2014 08:37 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
> On December 4, 2014 8:12:58 AM PST, Andrew Savchenko
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. But booting as much services as possible is even more
>> preferable, especially when box is remote.
>
> Are you sure booting most, but not all, services in a l
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Christopher Head wrote:
>
> What if now, by some accident, iptables ends up in a loop (maybe not even a
> loop including $insecure_service, but some other loop entirely), and it’s the
> randomly chosen victim? Is it still good to boot as many services as
> possi
On December 4, 2014 8:12:58 AM PST, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
>Yes. But booting as much services as possible is even more
>preferable, especially when box is remote.
Are you sure booting most, but not all, services in a loop is always better
than booting none of them at all? What if I have an in
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:59:22 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>> >
>> > 1. There are multiple services having "after $all" statement (an
>> > analog in Gentoo is "after *", which is curre
Hello, everybody!
I'm the author of discussed patches and let me put my 2¢. I want to
clarify some things and explain my position… Right away sorry for my
English skills. Also I wrote the patches year ago and may remember
something incorrectly.
1. The Later Loop Detector
There are really two ap
Hello,
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:59:22 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >
> > 1. There are multiple services having "after $all" statement (an
> > analog in Gentoo is "after *", which is currently used only by
> > local init.d script).
> >
>
> See
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> 1. There are multiple services having "after $all" statement (an
> analog in Gentoo is "after *", which is currently used only by
> local init.d script).
>
Seems to me that the solution to this is to ban this sort of syntax
entirely, and
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 22:53:38 +0400 Alexander V Vershilov wrote:
> Let me state my idea here.
>
> At first I want to mention that author provided 2 different approaches to
> the solution, simple dependency loop checker and another more complicated
> algorithm that is a loop breaker.
No, unfortunate
Hello,
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 12:39:12 -0600 William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> we have a pull request on OpenRC for a dependency checker [1].
>
> The author of this patch believes that we should not only scan for
> circular deps, but break some of them automatically.
Situation is more complicated tha
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:53:38PM +0400, Alexander V Vershilov wrote:
> Let me state my idea here.
>
> At first I want to mention that author provided 2 different approaches to
> the solution, simple dependency loop checker and another more complicated
> algorithm that is a loop breaker.
The oth
Let me state my idea here.
At first I want to mention that author provided 2 different approaches to
the solution, simple dependency loop checker and another more complicated
algorithm that is a loop breaker.
I think that on a boot phase in case of parallel boot rc should try to
check if loop exi
All,
we have a pull request on OpenRC for a dependency checker [1].
The author of this patch believes that we should not only scan for
circular deps, but break some of them automatically.
I, and several other team members I have spoken with on IRC, disagree
with this and think that we should jus
19 matches
Mail list logo
