On 12/21/2010 04:29 PM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
Just wanted to suggest an idea; could lxc generate a dummy 'lxcroot'
initscript containing Provides: checkroot and the same dependencies as
the real 'checkroot'? That should fill the 'gap' in the dependency
chain, and would also make it clear th
Hi,
Just wanted to suggest an idea; could lxc generate a dummy 'lxcroot'
initscript containing Provides: checkroot and the same dependencies as
the real 'checkroot'? That should fill the 'gap' in the dependency
chain, and would also make it clear that lxc and checkroot directly
conflict.
Since
On 12/21/2010 02:15 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
I could agree with this being a grave bug in lxc, though, if you wanted
to make that case.
checkroot is not suitable at all in lxc (or any container based
virtualization), therefore it should be disabled (otherwise booting a
container hangs for se
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:44:54 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:41:37 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
>
> > severity 607713 serious
> > thanks
> >
> > On 12/21/2010 01:38 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > >Then you get to keep the pieces.
> >
> > it remains serious, although
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:41:37 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> severity 607713 serious
> thanks
>
> On 12/21/2010 01:38 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >Then you get to keep the pieces.
>
> it remains serious, although sid only (which i tagged before).
>
Since when is "i broke my system and now it
severity 607713 serious
thanks
On 12/21/2010 01:38 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
Then you get to keep the pieces.
it remains serious, although sid only (which i tagged before).
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technolo
severity 607713 normal
kthxbye
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 13:26:19 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 01:22 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >It already depends on it via the dependency chain
> >ifupdown -> ifupdown-clean -> checkroot -> mountdevsubfs.
>
> no checkroot, see #601001.
>
Then y
retitle 607713 ifupdown-clean: use explicit depends to not break network
tag 607713 sid
thanks
updated patch attached.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technolog
On 12/21/2010 01:22 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
It already depends on it via the dependency chain
ifupdown -> ifupdown-clean -> checkroot -> mountdevsubfs.
no checkroot, see #601001.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baum...@progress-
On 2010-12-21 12:43 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Package: ifupdown
> Severity: serious
> Tag: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> if dependency based booting is enabled, then S02mountdevsubfs.sh is
> started *after* S08ifupdown, which means that /etc/network/run ->
> /dev/shm/network that gets created with S08if
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:43:39 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Package: ifupdown
> Severity: serious
> Tag: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> if dependency based booting is enabled, then S02mountdevsubfs.sh is
> started *after* S08ifupdown, which means that /etc/network/run ->
> /dev/shm/network that gets crea
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:43:39 +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Package: ifupdown
> Severity: serious
> Tag: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> if dependency based booting is enabled, then S02mountdevsubfs.sh is
> started *after* S08ifupdown, which means that /etc/network/run ->
> /dev/shm/network that gets crea
attaching patch.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net
Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/
>From 3e436692a6e2ef324c08ae2a179cf8a5db23c120 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From:
Package: ifupdown
Severity: serious
Tag: patch
Hi,
if dependency based booting is enabled, then S02mountdevsubfs.sh is
started *after* S08ifupdown, which means that /etc/network/run ->
/dev/shm/network that gets created with S08ifupdown is effectively
removed again.
this in turn makes ifupd
14 matches
Mail list logo
