❦ 24 mars 2019 14:40 +01, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud :
>> Wouldn't it break chrooted processes? But mostly, as the whole pattern
>> is broken, it seems to be a low-effort solution.
>
> Vincent: what scenario did you have in mind?
For the first part, any daemon chrooting (like HAProxy, lldpd). For the
Le dimanche, 24 mars 2019, 09.42:12 h CET Geert Stappers a écrit :
> What would be the harm to the Buster release
> if lsb-base got NMU
> with
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=888743;filename=ini
> t-functions.diff;msg=37 ?
I have now uploaded src:lsb to experimental with
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 4:42 PM Geert Stappers wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:49:09PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 8:41 PM Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of /
> > > do not care abo
❦ 24 mars 2019 09:42 +01, Geert Stappers :
> What would be the harm to the Buster release
> if lsb-base got NMU
> with
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=888743;filename=init-functions.diff;msg=37
> ?
Wouldn't it break chrooted processes? But mostly, as the whole pattern
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 09:49:09PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 8:41 PM Harald Dunkel wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > AFAICS there are several packages that appear to be unaware of /
> > do not care about containers, e.g. opensmtpd, bind9, apt-cacher-ng,
> > probably every
5 matches
Mail list logo
