Sebastien Roy wrote:
Furthermore, just turning off one service that apparently isn't
directly linked to GDM should not block GDM from running... at least
NOT without some clear warning of what is happening or about to
happen.
This much isn't related to NWAM, but I agree that there's
Brian/Sebastien:
Sebastien Roy wrote:
Furthermore, just turning off one service that apparently isn't
directly linked to GDM should not block GDM from running... at least
NOT without some clear warning of what is happening or about to
happen.
This much isn't related to NWAM, but I agree
Hi!
Something strange just happened to me today. I was having network
problems... So I did pfexec svcadm disable nwam ... and then, I decided
to reboot my machine before renabling it...
Well... it never finished booting to the GDM. Without NWAM (and not
setting to physical), the system doesn't
Gilles Gravier wrote:
Hi!
Something strange just happened to me today. I was having network
problems... So I did pfexec svcadm disable nwam ... and then, I decided
to reboot my machine before renabling it...
Well... it never finished booting to the GDM. Without NWAM (and not
setting to
Hi, Dave!
Dave Miner wrote:
Gilles Gravier wrote:
Hi!
Something strange just happened to me today. I was having network
problems... So I did pfexec svcadm disable nwam ... and then, I decided
to reboot my machine before renabling it...
Well... it never finished booting to the GDM. Without
Gilles Gravier wrote:
No, because the dependency graph for milestone/network requires one of
the instances of network/physical to be online, and milestone/network
in turn has many dependents. Enable either network/physical:nwam or
network/physical:default (the latter is effectively a no-op if
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 17:38 +0200, Gilles Gravier wrote:
Dave Miner wrote:
No, because the dependency graph for milestone/network requires one of
the instances of network/physical to be online, and milestone/network
in turn has many dependents. Enable either network/physical:nwam or
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:00:27PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 17:38 +0200, Gilles Gravier wrote:
Dave Miner wrote:
No, because the dependency graph for milestone/network requires one of
the instances of network/physical to be online, and milestone/network
in turn
Hi!
Renee Danson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:00:27PM -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 17:38 +0200, Gilles Gravier wrote:
Dave Miner wrote:
No, because the dependency graph for milestone/network requires one of
the instances of network/physical to be
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:38:40 +0200
Gilles Gravier gilles.grav...@sun.com wrote:
Furthermore, just turning off one service that apparently isn't
directly linked to GDM should not block GDM from running... at least
NOT without some clear warning of what is happening or about to
happen.
I
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 20:38 +0200, Gilles Gravier wrote:
I think it's important to support configurations where user (for
reasons that may be their own) want to completely remove networking.
This currently works with network/physical:default by simply not
creating any hostname.intf files and
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 20:47 +0200, dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:38:40 +0200
Gilles Gravier gilles.grav...@sun.com wrote:
Furthermore, just turning off one service that apparently isn't
directly linked to GDM should not block GDM from running... at least
NOT without some
12 matches
Mail list logo
