On 03/02/15 23:43, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The way I understand /usr/local, it is the place where the admin
himself places his own scripts and stuff, as extensions for the host
OS.
Yes, that view is consistent with the FHS (and e.g. Debian Policy's
interpretation of the FHS). ./configure
On Fri, 12.12.14 14:25, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote on 11/12/14 00:16:
* All systemd programs that read standalone configuration
files in /etc now also support a corresponding series of
.conf.d configuration directories
On Fri, 12.12.14 15:57, Matthias Urlichs (matth...@urlichs.de) wrote:
Hi,
Colin Guthrie:
What's the argument for including /usr/local in all this stuff? Feels
wrong to me.
+ME_TOO. /usr/local frequently has wider permissions than reasonable for
something that can affect system
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
Heya!
Here's the next version of systemd, v218:
http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/systemd-218.tar.xz
Hi Lennart,
It looks like the tarball is missing units/user/systemd-consoled.service.
make[2]:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:32:42AM -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
Heya!
Here's the next version of systemd, v218:
http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/systemd-218.tar.xz
Hi Lennart,
It looks like
Hi,
Colin Guthrie:
What's the argument for including /usr/local in all this stuff? Feels
wrong to me.
+ME_TOO. /usr/local frequently has wider permissions than reasonable for
something that can affect system startup.
I can think of one argument in favor of this -- you can modify the system
On 12/12/2014 02:57 PM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Colin Guthrie:
What's the argument for including /usr/local in all this stuff? Feels
wrong to me.
+ME_TOO. /usr/local frequently has wider permissions than reasonable for
something that can affect system startup.
I can think of one
