On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 23.10.15 14:03, Mantas Mikulėnas (graw...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Lennart Poettering < > lenn...@poettering.net> > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 23.10.15 00:59, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 23.10.2015 um 00:39 schrieb Ivan Shapovalov: > > > > >On 2015-10-22 at 23:12 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > >>[...] > > > > >>and why not simply "timedatectl -H user@host[:port]" since > host:port > > > > >>is > > > > >>a well known protocol agnostic way to specify a non-default port? > > > > > > > > > >Because the syntax of -H parameter is "[user@]host[:container]" > > > > >and it does not allow specifying an explicit port number. > > > > > > > > [user@]host[:container][:port] > > > > [user@]host[:port][:container] > > > > > > > > nothing unusual > > > > > > Nope. The idea is that > > > > > > foo:bar:baz:waldo > > > > > > is kind of "path": connect to host "foo", enter its container "bar", > > > and from there connect to "bar"'s container "baz" and then further > > > down into "baz"'s container "waldo"... Containers are stackable after > > > all. > > > > > > > The usual path separator would be "/" or "!", then? > > I have never seen "!" for this. (or well, maybe uucp, but christ...) > Yeah, I was referring to UUCP, since it's the same kind of hop-by-hop source-routing. (Admittedly, ":" was used the same way in Berknet...) Though, wouldn't containers just run sshd themselves? Or is this mostly for very-lightweight things? -- Mantas Mikulėnas <graw...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
