On 25 Feb 2014, at 1:29 am, Tony Stocker wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22 Feb 2014, at 2:16 am, Greg Woods wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 12:37 +, Tony Stocker wrote:
>>>
colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd
or do I need
On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On 22 Feb 2014, at 2:16 am, Greg Woods wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 12:37 +, Tony Stocker wrote:
colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd
or do I need to use an 'order' statement instead, i.e.:
order ftp_infra mandatory: inf
On 22 Feb 2014, at 2:16 am, Greg Woods wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 12:37 +, Tony Stocker wrote:
>
>> colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd
>>
>> or do I need to use an 'order' statement instead, i.e.:
>>
>> order ftp_infra mandatory: infra_group:start ftpd
>
> I'm
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 12:37 +, Tony Stocker wrote:
> colocation inf_ftpd inf: infra_group ftpd
>
> or do I need to use an 'order' statement instead, i.e.:
>
> order ftp_infra mandatory: infra_group:start ftpd
I'm far from a leading expert on this, but in my experience, col
I have the following type of scenario. I have established a resource
group which does a number of infrastructure type things: sets IP
addresses, sets correct password files, sets correct system links and
mount points, etc. I now have a bunch of primitives that I want to
colocate with this r
