On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 04:20:09PM +, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> If you really don't want PID files (and it probably means you have
> never had to deal with medium-scale deployments, but never mind), you
> can make it so that `-p` is an optional parameter, and if not passed
> no pidfile is cr
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 09:14:30AM +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> You know, usually it's enough to ping upstream. AFAIR there was
> a similar problem in irqbalance, and they have added plain
> '--foreground' for us.
I don't know there really is an upstream for portable openntpd right
now, there's b
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Or maybe yes. :) The condition I refered to is that the system is
> using openrc. Sorry if my weak language skills caused confusion!
>
What I mean is that it would be stupid to have USE=openrc to apply such a
patch. Either the patch is done c
# Hans de Graaff (30 Nov 2013)
# Masked for removal in a month due to ruby18 deprecation.
# Only available for ruby18 which is deprecated, bug 483600
app-i18n/rskkserv
# Only available for ruby18, maintainer needed
app-office/rabbit
# Only available for ruby18, no dependencies left
dev-ruby/postgr
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > > Conditionally patching openntpd in the ebuild if a system is using
> > > openrc is certainly the way to go.
> >
> > You mean unconditionally here, right?
>
> No.
Or maybe yes. :) The condition I refered to is that the system is
using openrc. S
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> > Conditionally patching openntpd in the ebuild if a system is using
> > openrc is certainly the way to go.
>
> You mean unconditionally here, right?
No.
> Because pid files should be there, full stop.
With openrc sure but neither want nor need them with service sup
Dnia 2013-11-29, o godz. 17:33:18
"Paul B. Henson" napisał(a):
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 09:49:03AM +0100, Lars Wendler wrote:
>
> > I think there's some confusion on what the -d option actually does, so
> > let me cite the relevant parts from "man 8 ntpd":
> [...]
> > Now let's discuss if this
