On 2015-05-14 at 22:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 07.05.15 04:37, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 2015-05-06 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 06.05.15 19:53, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com)
wrote:
I still think that being
On Fri, 15.05.15 11:38, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hmm, if , I think this should be fixable though. Already,
allocating a unit, loading a unit and starting a unit are three
separate steps. It shouldn't be too hard to fix PID 1 to allow
allocating all transient units to
On Fri, 15.05.15 13:03, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hmm, what about this: use -- as separator for multiple unit
definitions?
$ systemd-run --name=foo.service /bin/foo -- --name=bar.service -p
Nice=80 /bin/bar -- -p Nice=20 --name=bazz.service /usr/bin/bazz
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:10:58PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 15.05.15 13:03, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hm. Actually, usage of *any* token as a command line separator makes it
impossible to include that token *in* the command line. My original
idea is even
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:36:54AM +0100, Richard Maw wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:10:58PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 15.05.15 13:03, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hm. Actually, usage of *any* token as a command line separator makes it
impossible to
On 2015-05-15 at 11:54 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 15.05.15 11:38, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hmm, if , I think this should be fixable though. Already,
allocating a unit, loading a unit and starting a unit are three
separate steps. It shouldn't be too
On Fri, 15.05.15 11:36, Richard Maw (richard@codethink.co.uk) wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:10:58PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 15.05.15 13:03, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hm. Actually, usage of *any* token as a command line separator makes it
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:40:56PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 15.05.15 11:36, Richard Maw (richard@codethink.co.uk) wrote:
Is there precedent in any other commonly used command that could be used
instead? I've never seen anything that required escaping like this before,
On Thu, 07.05.15 04:37, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 2015-05-06 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 06.05.15 19:53, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
I still think that being able to define and start group of units
as one
unit (pun
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Ivan Shapovalov intelfx...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-04-24 at 11:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 24.04.15 04:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
- do `systemd-run` twice and somehow set up the dependencies
between
two transient
On 2015-05-06 at 09:16 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Ivan Shapovalov intelfx...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2015-04-24 at 11:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 24.04.15 04:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com)
wrote:
- do `systemd-run`
On Wed, 06.05.15 19:53, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
I still think that being able to define and start group of units as one
unit (pun unintended) is better in the long run.
This really far exceeds original scope of systemd-run which was
quickly start something under
В Wed, 6 May 2015 18:37:00 +0200
Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net пишет:
On Wed, 06.05.15 05:52, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 2015-04-24 at 11:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 24.04.15 04:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
-
On Wed, 06.05.15 05:52, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 2015-04-24 at 11:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 24.04.15 04:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
- do `systemd-run` twice and somehow set up the dependencies
between
two transient
On Wed, 06.05.15 09:16, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Ivan Shapovalov intelfx...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2015-04-24 at 11:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 24.04.15 04:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
- do
On 2015-05-06 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 06.05.15 19:53, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
I still think that being able to define and start group of units
as one
unit (pun unintended) is better in the long run.
This really far exceeds original
On 2015-04-24 at 11:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 24.04.15 04:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
- do `systemd-run` twice and somehow set up the dependencies
between
two transient units
I'd be happy to take a patch that allows configuring deps for
On Fri, 24.04.15 04:07, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
- do `systemd-run` twice and somehow set up the dependencies between
two transient units
I'd be happy to take a patch that allows configuring deps for
transient units when constructing them.
Lennart
--
Lennart
On 2015-04-08 at 19:28 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 23.03.15 16:04, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hello,
is it possible/allowed/desired to support assigning ExecStartPre=
and
similar options via dbus interface, i. e. in `systemctl set
-property` or
On Mon, 23.03.15 16:04, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hello,
is it possible/allowed/desired to support assigning ExecStartPre= and
similar options via dbus interface, i. e. in `systemctl set-property` or
`systemd-run -p`?
So far our philosophy for allowing dynamically
On Mon, 23.03.15 17:49, Ivan Shapovalov (intelfx...@gmail.com) wrote:
On 2015-03-23 at 13:45 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:04:28PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
Hello,
is it possible/allowed/desired to support assigning ExecStartPre= and
On 2015-03-23 at 13:45 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:04:28PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
Hello,
is it possible/allowed/desired to support assigning ExecStartPre= and
similar options via dbus interface, i. e. in `systemctl set-property` or
Hello,
is it possible/allowed/desired to support assigning ExecStartPre= and
similar options via dbus interface, i. e. in `systemctl set-property` or
`systemd-run -p`?
I'm hitting a usecase when I need to run a service with multiple
executed processes via `systemd-run`. I think this makes sense
On 2015-03-23 at 13:45 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:04:28PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
Hello,
is it possible/allowed/desired to support assigning ExecStartPre= and
similar options via dbus interface, i. e. in `systemctl set-property` or
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 04:04:28PM +0300, Ivan Shapovalov wrote:
Hello,
is it possible/allowed/desired to support assigning ExecStartPre= and
similar options via dbus interface, i. e. in `systemctl set-property` or
`systemd-run -p`?
I'm hitting a usecase when I need to run a service with
25 matches
Mail list logo
