On Fri, 08.08.14 12:07, Mateusz Jończyk (mat.jonc...@o2.pl) wrote:
Heya,
Hello,
The man page for nss-myhostname:
http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/nss-myhostname.html
suggests that myhostname should be used as a last entry in
/etc/nsswitch.conf:
It is recommended to put
On Fri, 08.08.14 18:00, Mateusz Jończyk (mat.jonc...@o2.pl) wrote:
Both issues could be solved by patching nss_myhostname:
- some configuration file which specifies which IP addresses to expose for
the
local hostname,
- reverse resolution may also be configurable, for example we could ask
On Sat, 09.08.14 06:44, Paassen, Hiram van (hiram.van.paas...@mastervolt.com)
wrote:
Am I correct in thinking this only works on systemd enabled host
systems or if you cross-compile for the same architecture? So you can
use the just compiled version of systemctl?
Well, what do you expect? I
On Thu, 07.08.14 15:09, Peter Mattern (matte...@arcor.de) wrote:
First, thank you very much for your quick responses.
I had missed the description in man systemd.unit (If any of these
options is assigned the empty string, ... at the end of the
paragraph about Condition*, right?) and a
Op 11 aug. 2014, om 12:47 heeft Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net het
volgende geschreven:
On Sat, 09.08.14 06:44, Paassen, Hiram van (hiram.van.paas...@mastervolt.com)
wrote:
Am I correct in thinking this only works on systemd enabled host
systems or if you cross-compile for the
Hello systemd,
I've got an embedded system which can run in two configurations;
configuration 1 will run daemon A, B and C
configuration 2 will run daemon A and D
The configuration is chosen at boot-time with a hardware switch. The
position of this switch is accessible with a userland tool (via
On Mon, 11.08.14 13:41, Markus Weißmann (markus.weissm...@in.tum.de) wrote:
Hi!
I've got an embedded system which can run in two configurations;
configuration 1 will run daemon A, B and C
configuration 2 will run daemon A and D
The configuration is chosen at boot-time with a hardware switch.
On Fri, 08.08.14 17:00, har...@redhat.com (har...@redhat.com) wrote:
From: Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com
According to Brent Baude bba...@redhat.com, who provided the patch,
IBM doesn't want to support the PPC 32 bit LE architecture at all.
What is support supposed to mean? Does that mean
On Fri, 08.08.14 19:16, Luis R. Rodriguez (mcg...@do-not-panic.com) wrote:
This looks really wrong. We shouldn't permit worker processes to be
blocked indefinitely without any timeout applied. Designing a worker
process system like that is simply wrong. It's one thing to allow
changing the
On Mon, 11.08.14 15:57, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 17:00, har...@redhat.com (har...@redhat.com) wrote:
From: Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com
According to Brent Baude bba...@redhat.com, who provided the patch,
IBM doesn't want to support the PPC
On Mon, 2014-08-11 at 15:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 17:00, har...@redhat.com (har...@redhat.com) wrote:
From: Harald Hoyer har...@redhat.com
According to Brent Baude bba...@redhat.com, who provided the patch,
IBM doesn't want to support the PPC 32 bit LE
On Fri, 08.08.14 10:44, tomw (t...@ubilix.com) wrote:
Hi,
migrating from sysV to systemd I ran into some issues with random
behavior of session bus availability. The setup is as follows:
systemd starts a service which starts an x-session like this:
[Unit]
Description=Master Process
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
In session_prepare_vt() we set owner of /dev/ttyX to the user, as that is
needed for things to work. However, we shouldn't reset it to root on
session_restore_vt() since it could have in fact already been set to
the user.
I
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
While a session can only ever have one controller, there can be more than
one session with a controller at a time. However, because of the handling
of SIGUSR1 for handling VT switch, trying to set a controller on a session
while
On 08/11/14 16:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
In session_prepare_vt() we set owner of /dev/ttyX to the user, as that is
needed for things to work. However, we shouldn't reset it to root on
session_restore_vt() since it could have
On 08/11/14 16:34, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
While a session can only ever have one controller, there can be more than
one session with a controller at a time. However, because of the handling
of SIGUSR1 for handling VT switch,
On Mon, 11.08.14 16:46, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:34, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
While a session can only ever have one controller, there can be more than
one session with a controller at a
On Mon, 11.08.14 16:39, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
In session_prepare_vt() we set owner of /dev/ttyX to the user, as that is
needed for things to work. However, we
On 08/11/14 16:54, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 16:39, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
In session_prepare_vt() we set owner of /dev/ttyX to the user, as that
Hi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:54, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 16:39, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
If controllers can expect logind to have prepared the VT (e.g. set it to
graphics mode, etc) then TakeControl() should fail if said preparation
failed (and session_restore_vt() was called).
---
Hi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 16:46, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:34, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 20:45, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
While a session can only ever
On 08/11/14 17:12, David Herrmann wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:54, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 16:39, Olivier Brunel (j...@jjacky.com) wrote:
On 08/11/14 16:25, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14
On Mon, 11.08.14 17:17, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
If controllers can expect logind to have prepared the VT (e.g. set it to
graphics mode, etc) then TakeControl() should fail if said preparation
sd-event does not allow multiple handlers for a single signal. However,
logind sets up signal handlers for each session with VT_PROCESS set (that
is, it has an active controller). Therefore, registering multiple such
controllers will fail.
Lets make the VT-handler global, as it's mostly trivial,
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:50:47PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 08.08.14 19:16, Luis R. Rodriguez (mcg...@do-not-panic.com) wrote:
This looks really wrong. We shouldn't permit worker processes to be
blocked indefinitely without any timeout applied. Designing a worker
process
Hi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 17:17, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
If controllers can expect logind to have prepared the VT
Hi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Olivier Brunel j...@jjacky.com wrote:
On 08/11/14 17:12, David Herrmann wrote:
Wait, what? Can you please elaborate. Currently, only one process can
Sorry, I meant e.g. having one rootless X on tt1 and starting another
one on tty2. Currently this fails
On Mon, 11.08.14 18:21, David Herrmann (dh.herrm...@gmail.com) wrote:
+/*
+ * SIGRTMIN is used as global VT-release signal, SIGRTMIN + 1 is used
+ * as VT-acquire signal. We ignore any acquire-events (yes, we still
+ * have to provide a valid signal-number for
On Mon, 11.08.14 18:46, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
With this code you block, but do not ignore SGRTMIN+1. Now, rtsigs
actually are implemented in a queue, multiple instances of the same
signal might be queued up. If you simply block dispatching, then the
queue will
Hi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 18:46, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote:
With this code you block, but do not ignore SGRTMIN+1. Now, rtsigs
actually are implemented in a queue, multiple instances of the
On Thu, 07.08.14 15:21, Dimitri John Ledkov (dimitri.led...@canonical.com)
wrote:
From: Dimitri John Ledkov x...@ubuntu.com
tmpfiles.d files do not depend on /usr present, and in
--enable-split-usr configuration there may be system units
(e.g. shipped in /lib) that rely on tmpfiles.d to be
On Mon, 11.08.14 18:39, Luis R. Rodriguez (mcg...@suse.com) wrote:
This looks really wrong. We shouldn't permit worker processes to be
blocked indefinitely without any timeout applied. Designing a worker
process system like that is simply wrong. It's one thing to allow
changing the
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
On Mon, 11.08.14 18:39, Luis R. Rodriguez (mcg...@suse.com) wrote:
This looks really wrong. We shouldn't permit worker processes to be
blocked indefinitely without any timeout applied. Designing a worker
Hi,
I am seeing an oddity in the CGroup output of systemctl status ran on
some units. On the other hand, systemd-cgls shows correct information.
Here is an example:
--
$ systemctl status netctl@wan.service
netctl@wan.service - DHCP connection on bond0
Loaded: loaded
This looks weird. You first become user xyzuser, then you run sudo
again, to become xyzuser? What's that supposed to do? Why involve
sudo here at all? You could also use PAMName= directly...?
Thanks for your helpful comments. This setup is intended to boot
directly into an application w/o any
On 08/11/14 18:21, David Herrmann wrote:
sd-event does not allow multiple handlers for a single signal. However,
logind sets up signal handlers for each session with VT_PROCESS set (that
is, it has an active controller). Therefore, registering multiple such
controllers will fail.
Lets make
On Mon, 11.08.14 19:48, tomw (t...@ubilix.com) wrote:
This looks weird. You first become user xyzuser, then you run sudo
again, to become xyzuser? What's that supposed to do? Why involve
sudo here at all? You could also use PAMName= directly...?
Thanks for your helpful comments. This
Separating the unit to sync time from the ones featuring OnCalendar by
time-sync.target (or any arbitrary target used as separating wall)
worked exactly as expected on ARM and is indeed a workaround for the
problem.
Couldn't reproduce the need to set DefaultDependencies=No in the units
Van: Koen Kooi [k...@dominion.thruhere.net]
Verzonden: maandag 11 augustus 2014 13:19
Op 11 aug. 2014, om 12:47 heeft Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net
het volgende geschreven:
On Sat, 09.08.14 06:44, Paassen, Hiram van
(hiram.van.paas...@mastervolt.com) wrote:
Am I correct in
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a router where I experiment with OpenWRT. I sysupdate (i.e.
reinstall) openwrt regularly, once or twice a week. I also have an
Arch home server with the latest systemd. The machine connected via
ethernet
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote:
The caller may have an existing DUID that it wants to use, and may
want to use some other DUID generation scheme than systemd's
default DUID-EN.
I have no objections a priori to this patch. But what is the use case?
Is there
Hi
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Anatol Pomozov anatol.pomo...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have a router where I experiment with OpenWRT. I sysupdate (i.e.
reinstall) openwrt regularly, once or twice a week. I also have an
Arch
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Thomas H.P. Andersen pho...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Thomas Hindoe Paaboel Andersen pho...@gmail.com
---
src/resolve/resolved-dns-scope.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-scope.c
44 matches
Mail list logo
