Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 0/5] kdbus: allow multiple policies

2014-08-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On 31/07/14 21:38, Kay Sievers wrote: > We have one .busname file per name and it will get really complicated > to start stop a busname, when it has multiple names per connection. We > should really avoid that and require one connection per name and allow > only name. I might be misunderstanding w

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 0/5] kdbus: allow multiple policies

2014-08-01 Thread Kay Sievers
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 31/07/14 21:38, Kay Sievers wrote: >> We have one .busname file per name and it will get really complicated >> to start stop a busname, when it has multiple names per connection. We >> should really avoid that and require one connection pe

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 0/5] kdbus: allow multiple policies

2014-08-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On 01/08/14 12:20, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Simon McVittie > wrote: >> are you saying that under kdbus, each connection to the bus [...] is only >> allowed to own one well-known name (thing like org.freedesktop.systemd1)? > > No, it is not about connections that exchan

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 0/5] kdbus: allow multiple policies

2014-08-01 Thread Djalal Harouni
Hi, On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:38:47PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: > > (Cc'ed Lennart) > > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:40:53PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Djalal Harouni wrote: > >> > This series adds t

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 06/11] There is no ANSI support on common 3215 consoles

2014-08-01 Thread Dr. Werner Fink
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Also, we are not going to add code for any specific weird terminal > settings. We will do three levels: TERM=linux for the full Linux > console, TERM=vt102 otherwise, and TERM=dumb for the crap that can't do > TERM=vt102. But

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 06/11] There is no ANSI support on common 3215 consoles

2014-08-01 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Fri, 01.08.14 16:07, Dr. Werner Fink (wer...@suse.de) wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:03:47PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > Also, we are not going to add code for any specific weird terminal > > settings. We will do three levels: TERM=linux for the full Linux > > console, TERM=v

[systemd-devel] [patch] #include src/shared/missing.h in src/shared/util.h for missing struct file_handle definition

2014-08-01 Thread Samuli Suominen
Mike Frysinger pointed out util.h is using a struct defined in missing.h but doesn't #include it: util.h has: union file_handle_union { struct file_handle handle; char padding[sizeof(struct file_handle) + MAX_HANDLE_SZ]; }; missing.h has: #if !HAVE_DECL_NAME_TO_HANDLE_AT struct

Re: [systemd-devel] [patch] #include src/shared/missing.h in src/shared/util.h for missing struct file_handle definition

2014-08-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On 01/08/14 15:43, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Please, #include "missing.h" in src/shared/util.h to fix the build for > old systems w/ no system header defining > the struct I ran into the same thing on a slightly odd system (Debian 7 with a backported kernel, so it has Linux 3.14 but only glibc 2.13

Re: [systemd-devel] [patch] #include src/shared/missing.h in src/shared/util.h for missing struct file_handle definition

2014-08-01 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/08/14 17:53, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 01/08/14 15:43, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> Please, #include "missing.h" in src/shared/util.h to fix the build for >> old systems w/ no system header defining >> the struct > I ran into the same thing on a slightly odd system (Debian 7 with a > backporte

Re: [systemd-devel] [patch] #include src/shared/missing.h in src/shared/util.h for missing struct file_handle definition

2014-08-01 Thread Simon McVittie
On 01/08/14 15:53, Simon McVittie wrote: > Best-practice in Autotools projects seems to be to include config.h at > the very top of every .c file, whether it is currently needed or not. Sorry, I'd missed that systemd uses "cc -include $(top_builddir)/config.h ...", which is even better. My issues

Re: [systemd-devel] [patch] #include src/shared/missing.h in src/shared/util.h for missing struct file_handle definition

2014-08-01 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/08/14 18:31, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 01/08/14 15:53, Simon McVittie wrote: >> Best-practice in Autotools projects seems to be to include config.h at >> the very top of every .c file, whether it is currently needed or not. > Sorry, I'd missed that systemd uses "cc -include > $(top_builddir

Re: [systemd-devel] Support for pre-restart check

2014-08-01 Thread Reindl Harald
please don't break "reply-to-list" with reply-all Am 31.07.2014 um 13:30 schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas: > On Jul 31, 2014 12:57 PM, "Reindl Harald" > wrote: >> Am 31.07.2014 um 02:16 schrieb Colin Guthrie: >> > Reindl Harald wrote on 30/07/14 13:34: >> >> *how* should th

Re: [systemd-devel] [patch] #include src/shared/missing.h in src/shared/util.h for missing struct file_handle definition

2014-08-01 Thread Michael Olbrich
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:37:51PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 01/08/14 18:31, Simon McVittie wrote: > > On 01/08/14 15:53, Simon McVittie wrote: > >> Best-practice in Autotools projects seems to be to include config.h at > >> the very top of every .c file, whether it is currently needed or