On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:09:02 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > And now it's perfectly all right. What is one supposed to do in the
> > face of such chaos?
> >
> > I confess that the machine is perilously close to being hurled
> > through the window.
There were updates to udev and systemd-utils, I wonder if
Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday, 18 April 2022 16:05:24 -00 Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
>> The machine is sick. I now have no mouse or keyboard after POST. They're
>> fine in UEFI BIOS setup, and they're fine after the default kernel has
>> finished booting - just not at boot menu time.
> And now it'
On 4/18/22 22:53, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Monday, 18 April 2022 16:05:24 -00 Peter Humphrey wrote:
The machine is sick. I now have no mouse or keyboard after POST. They're
fine in UEFI BIOS setup, and they're fine after the default kernel has
finished booting - just not at boot menu time.
And
On Monday, 18 April 2022 16:05:24 -00 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> The machine is sick. I now have no mouse or keyboard after POST. They're
> fine in UEFI BIOS setup, and they're fine after the default kernel has
> finished booting - just not at boot menu time.
And now it's perfectly all right. What i
On Sunday, 17 April 2022 20:17:47 -00 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 1:05 PM Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 17 April 2022 16:42:35 -00 Martin Vaeth wrote:
> > >> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > >> > On Sunday, 17 April 2022 14:54:50 -00 Rich Freeman wrote
On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 1:05 PM Martin Vaeth wrote:
>
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 April 2022 16:42:35 -00 Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, 17 April 2022 14:54:50 -00 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> >> Can't you just fix your USE flags with systemd-utils? W
On Sunday, 17 April 2022 17:05:18 -00 Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 April 2022 16:42:35 -00 Martin Vaeth wrote:
> >> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, 17 April 2022 14:54:50 -00 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> >> Can't you just fix your USE flags with systemd-utils?
On Sunday, 17 April 2022 16:42:35 -00 Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 April 2022 14:54:50 -00 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> Can't you just fix your USE flags with systemd-utils? Why revert?
> >
> > No, because the flag I'd need is 'boot', and that triggers switching from
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> Yes. How else is sys-apps/sysvinit going to be unmerged? Either you let
> portage clean it up (depclean), or you need to do it manually.
>
He already has sysvinit unmerged. Portage unmerged that because it
was a blocker for systemd[s
On Sun, Feb 11 2018, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/02/18 02:16, allan gottlieb wrote:
>> I have a question on this news item.
>>
>> I use systemd (gnome3) on a gentoo stable system.
>> eix reports that sys-apps/systemd-236-r5 is installed
>>
>> But
>> euse -I sysv-utils
>> reports
>> no
On Saturday, 4 November 2017 19:23:40 GMT Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 04/11/17 18:15, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
> >> I have a short question to systemd. I would like to ask your experience
> >> in the changeover. Was it easy? Were there p
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> On 04/11/17 18:15, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
>>
>> I have a short question to systemd. I would like to ask your experience
>> in the changeover. Was it easy? Were there problems?
>> Change or reinstall? What mean the profis here?
>
>
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 04/11/17 18:15, siefke_lis...@web.de wrote:
>>
>> I have a short question to systemd. I would like to ask your experience
>> in the changeover. Was it easy? Were there problems?
>> Change or reinstall? What mean the profis here?
>
>
> I
On 11/01/2017 02:12 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
What's the problem with mdadm and openrc?
openrc terminates mdmon too early and so every time I rebooted this
machine when it had a RAID it marked the array as dirty and rebuilt it.
The PC was not usable while it was rebuilding, it was so dang slow,
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Wols Lists wrote:
>
> Windows WON'T SHUT DOWN PROPERLY most of the time.
>
> And something messed up /home.
>
> Easy enough to fix, when I eventually found out the cause. Run fsck on
> /dev/sda8. Re-configure windows to tell it "shut down does NOT mean
> hibernate,
On 01/11/17 20:25, Daniel Frey wrote:
> On 10/29/2017 08:15 AM, Daniel Frey wrote:
>> Come to think of it, I'm going to look back and see if there was an
>> update around the time I started having problems. Maybe there was a
>> regression of some sort.
>>
>
> So I bought a large SSD, and cloned to
On 10/29/2017 08:15 AM, Daniel Frey wrote:
Come to think of it, I'm going to look back and see if there was an
update around the time I started having problems. Maybe there was a
regression of some sort.
So I bought a large SSD, and cloned to it. I'm not stuck with IMSM any
more, but system
On 10/28/2017 05:18 PM, Adam Carter wrote:
I'm still having this issue, anyone have any ideas? I can see that
NetworkManager-Wait-Online finishes, and that the mounting starts
immediately after, but I don't think the network is quite up yet,
resulting an all nfs mounts to timeout
> I'm still having this issue, anyone have any ideas? I can see that
> NetworkManager-Wait-Online finishes, and that the mounting starts
> immediately after, but I don't think the network is quite up yet, resulting
> an all nfs mounts to timeout.
>
> The computer is using a static IP, so it shouldn
you should probably update your' kernel anyway, a lot of recent security fixes
in the newer kernels.
mad.scientist.at.large (a good madscientist)
--
"The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report made public in January
that the Kremlin sought to disrupt the 2016 election and sway the rac
you should update the kernel anyway. some serious security holes have recently
been found and corrected in the newest kernel.
mad.scientist.at.large (a good madscientist)
--
"The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report made public in January
that the Kremlin sought to disrupt the 2016
updating the kernel is a really good idea, recent kernels have corrected a
number of serious security issues that are definitely real and exploitable.
mad.scientist.at.large (a good madscientist)
--
"The U.S. intelligence community concluded in a report made public in January
that the Kremlin s
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>
> There is no such kernel option.
Yes, there is[1]. However, there is no such option for kernel version
4.9[2], although there is for 4.10[3]. I think that's the problem, for
using the firewall BPF options of systemd, you'll need to use
Kai Krakow wrote:
- cron/anacron after transition to systemd timers
You might want to also look at sys-process/systemd-cron as a bridge.
It basically generates timer units from your crontab and also runs the
stuff in /etc/cron.*.d/. But, timer scripts also work just fine and I
do that for stuf
Kai Krakow wrote:
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:27:57 +0200
schrieb Raffaele Belardi :
Looks like systemd does not provide a unit file for hdparm yet,
right? If so I suppose I'll have to write my own.
In general I suppose the same holds for everything that was
under /etc/local.d/
I've put the hdparm
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:45:59 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
> All those services are well integrated with each other and suitable for
> most stuff. Tho, systemd-networkd is not explicitly developed as a
> desktop daemon currently, systemd folks still tend to recommend
> NetworkManager to get all feature
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Jonathan Callen wrote:
> The python USE flag has been removed
> from newer stable versions of sys-apps/systemd (in favor of
> dev-python/python-systemd), but dev-python/python-systemd is not yet
> stable.
Thanks for catching that; I will file a stablereq right aw
On 06/08/2015 20:28, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Thursday, August 06, 2015 02:59:09 PM Mick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 A
On Thursday, August 06, 2015 02:59:09 PM Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > >>> Much of what m
On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 22:47:43 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent
> >>> year
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:47:58 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
It may be that in recent year
On 05/08/2015 23:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
>> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
>>> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:20:17 PM Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
> > so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
> > something useful. I'm reminded o
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:47:58 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 10:18, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> >>> > > In this context does '&hostname' mean a-pointer-to-a-pointer-to-the-
> >>> > > charstring we actually need?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Doesn't this code seem needlessly complicated?
>
On 05/08/2015 19:20, Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
>> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
>> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
On Wednesday 05 Aug 2015 11:47:58 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Much of what makes programming work has been dumbed down in recent years
> so that employable persons without imagination[1] can have jobs and do
> something useful. I'm reminded of an old saw about PHP:
>
> The nice thing about php is it le
On 05/08/2015 10:18, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> You can look at it like that, but more technically it's because C doesn't
> support out arguments, or reference arguments, or objects. All arguments are
> passed by value. You can return multiple values in a struct but it's not very
> convenient b
On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 6:18:07 AM Franz Fellner wrote:
> walt wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200
> > Franz Fellner wrote:
> >
> > > Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> > > > > That line declares *hostname as a constant and then t
walt wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:19:37 +0200
> Franz Fellner wrote:
>
> > Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> > > > That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement
> > > > below proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:56 PM, walt wrote:
> Let me give you one more example of syntax that I find unreasonable,
> and then I'll ask my *real* question, about which I hope you will have
> opinions.
>
> Okay, the statement I referred to above uses this notation:
>
> if (!link->network->hostname)
Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> > That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below
> > proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours
> > of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while try
On Monday, August 03, 2015 6:41:22 PM walt wrote:
> That line declares *hostname as a constant and then the statement below
> proceeds to assign a value to the 'constant'. I wonder how many hours
> of frustration have been suffered by student programmers while trying to
> understand the logic behi
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM, walt wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:03:11 -0700
> walt wrote:
>
>> I've been running systemd for a long time without needing to enable
>> the dhcpcd service at boot time. Starting with systemd-224 that is no
>> longer true.
>
> Oops, journalctl tells me that syst
On 22/03/2015 03:32, Hans wrote:
> On 22/03/15 08:44, walt wrote:
>> I'd be 100% sure this is a systemd bug except that the problem is so
>> obvious and (I think) so common that I can't believe I'm the only
>> systemd user seeing it:
>>
>> I routinely share /usr/portage over NFS between several gen
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Joseph wrote:
> No, the problem in Fedora was thier "selinux". I suppose to be some extra
> security, but it seems to me it creates only more problems.
A common observation with SELinux. Even so, it definitely DOES
provide additional security. It is a standard
On 02/11/15 19:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, walt wrote:
Yes, I see the same, which I feel is a systemd bug. The escaping
trick works only with the 'enable' command, not stop or start. Dumb.
It seems more likely to be an error with the unit, which has nothing
to
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:37:22 -0800, walt wrote:
> > % ls -l /etc/systemd/system/systemd-networkd.service.wants/
> > systemd-resolved.service
> > -> /usr/lib/systemd/system/systemd-resolved.service
> > wpa_supplicant@wlan0.service
> > -> /usr/lib64/systemd/system/wpa_supplicant@.service
>
> Yes,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:37 PM, walt wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 03:20 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 PM, walt wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, thank you! Did you use systemctl to make all the symlinks? I just
>>> did it
>>> all manually and it works, but I'm not sure how I would have
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM, walt wrote:
>
> Yes, I see the same, which I feel is a systemd bug. The escaping
> trick works only with the 'enable' command, not stop or start. Dumb.
>
It seems more likely to be an error with the unit, which has nothing
to do with systemd. As I mentioned alre
On 02/11/15 15:26, walt wrote:
On 02/11/2015 02:38 PM, Joseph wrote:
On 02/11/15 13:52, walt wrote:
On 02/11/2015 10:58 AM, Joseph wrote:
on Fedora when I do systemctl enable openvpn@eeepc.service
I get:
Failed to execute operation: No such file or directory.
You need to escape the @ by typ
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 PM, walt wrote:
>
> Yes, thank you! Did you use systemctl to make all the symlinks? I just did
> it
> all manually and it works, but I'm not sure how I would have done it using
> systemctl.
>
systemctl enable
That looks in the unit's install section to see what
On 02/11/15 13:52, walt wrote:
On 02/11/2015 10:58 AM, Joseph wrote:
on Fedora when I do systemctl enable openvpn@eeepc.service
I get:
Failed to execute operation: No such file or directory.
You need to escape the @ by typing openvpn\@eeepc.service,
which is not clear from the error message.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés
> wrote:
>> Be aware that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is still required by a lot of
>> things (gcc-config, python-updater, perl-cleaner, stuff like
>> that).They are trying to move that fil
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> Be aware that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is still required by a lot of
> things (gcc-config, python-updater, perl-cleaner, stuff like
> that).They are trying to move that file to a more reasonable location;
> I expect it to be done in fi
Be aware that /etc/init.d/functions.sh is still required by a lot of
things (gcc-config, python-updater, perl-cleaner, stuff like
that).They are trying to move that file to a more reasonable location;
I expect it to be done in five or six years.
Regards.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:00 AM, walt wr
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:53 PM, walt wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 08:23 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:39 PM, walt wrote:
>>>
>>> I just switched my home LAN from wired to all wifi and I'm having trouble
>>> with NetworkManager at boot time.
>>>
>>> I have systemd start NetworkManager a
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:53 PM, walt wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 08:23 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:39 PM, walt wrote:
>>>
>>> I just switched my home LAN from wired to all wifi and I'm having trouble
>>> with NetworkManager at boot time.
>>>
>>> I have systemd start NetworkManager a
2014-10-14 16:54 GMT-06:00 Canek Peláez Valdés :
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:48 PM, walt wrote:
> [ snip ]
>> Lots of great information, thanks. What I learned while following up
>> on your hints is that the NM behavior I thought was a bug is merely
>> a feature ;)
>>
>> After boot, but before st
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:48 PM, walt wrote:
[ snip ]
> Lots of great information, thanks. What I learned while following up
> on your hints is that the NM behavior I thought was a bug is merely
> a feature ;)
>
> After boot, but before startx, wlan0 exists but is not properly set
> up. After X
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Mick wrote:
>
> I am mostly happy with openrc and therefore have no reason to move to the
> systemd monoculture, unless gentoo falls in line with Debian et al. and leaves
> me no choice.
>
I don't really see that happening anytime soon - it will be more
likely to b
On Friday 06 Jun 2014 12:18:09 Rich Freeman wrote:
> That would be udev. It has been around long before systemd, and you
> must have missed the huge flamewar when they renamed it to
> systemd-udevd. Maybe we'll see "java" renamed to
> "java-by-oracle-with-ask-toolbar" next. :)
TBH I wouldn't b
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Mick wrote:
> On Friday 06 Jun 2014 00:15:02 Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>
>> I bet you have quite a lot of systemd components lurking in the background
>> though, ready to take over the world the next time you aren't looking :-)
>
> Ha! I can already see this one:
>
>
On Friday 06 Jun 2014 00:15:02 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Thursday 05 June 2014 13:58:45 Mick wrote:
> > .., I've keyworded sys-power/upower-0.99.0 for now on one machine
> > and it seems to work fine, without imposing systemd at the moment. :-)
>
> I bet you have quite a lot of systemd component
On Thursday 05 June 2014 13:58:45 Mick wrote:
> .., I've keyworded sys-power/upower-0.99.0 for now on one machine
> and it seems to work fine, without imposing systemd at the moment. :-)
I bet you have quite a lot of systemd components lurking in the background
though, ready to take over the wo
On Thursday 05 Jun 2014 12:26:09 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/06/14 13:47, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 06:23:38 +0100
> >
> > Mick wrote:
> >> Are you saying that as things stand it is a matter of time before a
> >> gentoo user will have to switch from openrc to systemd, if they
>
On 05/06/14 13:47, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 06:23:38 +0100
> Mick wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that as things stand it is a matter of time before a
>> gentoo user will have to switch from openrc to systemd, if they
>> want/need to continue using sleep and hibernate?
> For them to hav
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 06:23:38 +0100
Mick wrote:
> Are you saying that as things stand it is a matter of time before a
> gentoo user will have to switch from openrc to systemd, if they
> want/need to continue using sleep and hibernate?
For them to have support for sleep and hibernate, someone needs
On Thursday 05 Jun 2014 10:08:53 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/06/14 12:03, Mick wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 Jun 2014 08:25:30 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 05/06/14 08:23, Mick wrote:
> >>> Are you saying that as things stand it is a matter of time before a
> >>> gentoo user will have to switch fr
On 05/06/14 12:03, Mick wrote:
> On Thursday 05 Jun 2014 08:25:30 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 05/06/14 08:23, Mick wrote:
>>> Are you saying that as things stand it is a matter of time before a
>>> gentoo user will have to switch from openrc to systemd, if they
>>> want/need to continue using sle
On Thursday 05 Jun 2014 08:25:30 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/06/14 08:23, Mick wrote:
> > Are you saying that as things stand it is a matter of time before a
> > gentoo user will have to switch from openrc to systemd, if they
> > want/need to continue using sleep and hibernate?
>
> For those t
On 05/06/14 08:23, Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 Jun 2014 23:27:05 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 05/06/14 01:14, »Q« wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:06:07 +0200
>>>
>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
The good news is that the version of upower prior to this decision
still works fine and likely w
On Wednesday 04 Jun 2014 23:27:05 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 05/06/14 01:14, »Q« wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:06:07 +0200
> >
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> The good news is that the version of upower prior to this decision
> >> still works fine and likely will for ages to come. That code ha
On 05/06/14 01:14, »Q« wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 22:06:07 +0200
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> The good news is that the version of upower prior to this decision
>> still works fine and likely will for ages to come. That code has been
>> bundled into a new package upower-pm-utils.
>>
>> Anyone th
On Tuesday 03 June 2014 10:39:10 »Q« wrote:
> I figured out what I wanted to do (uninstall upower, install
> upower-pm-utils) by reading the changelogs, but I don't know what my
> other options were. Could I have stuck with upower, letting it pull in
> systemd, without messing up openrc?
Apparen
Am 08.04.2014 07:24, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
> I just looked up what systemd-networkd and virt-manager do.
>
> No tap-devices here when I run a local VM ... so I might review the
> openrc-script for reference.
edited and tested the bridge.service:
http://www.oops.co.at/en/publications/sys
Am 07.04.2014 19:14, schrieb Tom H:
> You're welcome.
>
> I've never used virt-manager but I assume that it functions like
> virt-install or that it uses virt-install under the gui.
>
> If that's the case, it won't use predefined tap devices, slaved to a
> bridge or not. It'll create vnetX tap d
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Am 06.04.2014 15:02, schrieb Tom H:
>
>>> So the openrc-example might be simplified? ok with me ... does anyone
>>> confirm?
>>
>> It depends how you set up your network on the qemu command line.
>>
>> If you use "qemu -netdev tap,id=hn
Am 06.04.2014 15:02, schrieb Tom H:
>> So the openrc-example might be simplified? ok with me ... does anyone
>> confirm?
>
> It depends how you set up your network on the qemu command line.
>
> If you use "qemu -netdev tap,id=hn0,script=no,downscript=no ...", you need
> to set up a tap.
>
> If
On 2014-02-18 11:39 AM, eroen wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:24:05 -0500, Tanstaafl
wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, before I go and open up a bug requesting this...
I know there have to be a lot of people on this list who can answer
this question...
Is making the use of systemd or not based on a selected
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Sam Jorna wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/12/13 09:36, walt wrote:
>> On 12/08/2013 10:39 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 11:12:23 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>>
> It has the same problem. I looked more
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 4:36 PM, walt wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 10:39 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 11:12:23 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
It has the same problem. I looked more carefully at the systemd logs
and found that lvm was running before the xhci kernel modul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/12/13 09:36, walt wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 10:39 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 11:12:23 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
It has the same problem. I looked more carefully at the systemd logs
and found that lvm was run
On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 11:12:23 -0600, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > It has the same problem. I looked more carefully at the systemd logs
> > and found that lvm was running before the xhci kernel module was
> > loaded, hence the usb3 drive was not visible yet.
> >
> > I "fixed" the problem by adding
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, walt wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 05:58 PM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 07 2013, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2013 12:40 PM, "walt" wrote:
Just updated my stable amd64 machine to use systemd and all is working
okay except for the
On Sat, 07 Dec 2013 01:43:37 -0500
Jonathan Callen wrote:
> Udev as installed by sys-fs/udev is *exactly* the same as udev
> installed by sys-apps/systemd, except that the latter installs more
> files. It is very much possible to switch to systemd as your udev
> provider without using the rest o
On 10/23/2013 05:51 PM, Steven J. Long wrote:
> Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> Do you know the design consequences of opt-in versus opt-out? I'll keep
>> this short: When evolving a codebase, new behavior for core parts of the
>> system should not be pushed or forced on users. If you must, keep the
>> o
Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> systemd.unit (5)
> systemd.service (5)
> On Jul 28, 2013 6:26 AM, wrote:
>
> > walt wrote:
> >
> > > On 07/26/2013 06:39 AM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
> > > > must I check that every entry previously in /etc/init.d now has an
> > entry
> > > > in /usr/lib/systemd/syste
systemd.unit (5)
systemd.service (5)
On Jul 28, 2013 6:26 AM, wrote:
> walt wrote:
>
> > On 07/26/2013 06:39 AM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
> > > must I check that every entry previously in /etc/init.d now has an
> entry
> > > in /usr/lib/systemd/system? What do I do if there is no corresponding
>
walt wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 06:39 AM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
> > must I check that every entry previously in /etc/init.d now has an entry
> > in /usr/lib/systemd/system? What do I do if there is no corresponding
> > entry?
>
> I actually had to write a few of my own *.service files, which belo
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM, wrote:
> > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:04 AM, András Csányi
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 23 July 2013 08:54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> >> On 23/07/13 08:43, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:28 PM, wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:04 AM, András Csányi wrote:
>> > On 23 July 2013 08:54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> >> On 23/07/13 08:43, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 23/07/13 00:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>> >>>
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:04 AM, András Csányi wrote:
> > On 23 July 2013 08:54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> On 23/07/13 08:43, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 23/07/13 00:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>
> This would be a lot less of an issue if som
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:04 AM, András Csányi wrote:
> On 23 July 2013 08:54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 23/07/13 08:43, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/07/13 00:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
This would be a lot less of an issue if someone just wrote a logind
ebuild (wink
On 23/07/13 09:54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 23/07/13 08:43, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 23/07/13 00:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
This would be a lot less of an issue if someone just wrote a logind
ebuild (wink wink) that provides consolekit like it was originally
intended.
not possible, logi
On 23 July 2013 08:54, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/07/13 08:43, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>> On 23/07/13 00:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
>>>
>>> This would be a lot less of an issue if someone just wrote a logind
>>> ebuild (wink wink) that provides consolekit like it was originally
>>> inten
On Wed, Feb 13 2013, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> If you can't find the power off button in a modern GNOME installation
>> you have to be quite blind... of course, I don't even use it when I
>> have it, powering off from the console and all.
>
> I guess you haven't seen the mountains of users who didn
> If you can't find the power off button in a modern GNOME installation
> you have to be quite blind... of course, I don't even use it when I
> have it, powering off from the console and all.
I guess you haven't seen the mountains of users who didn't consider
holding ALT to change the suspend opti
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>> I'm happy to be shown to be wrong and to be shown where Gnome3 has merit
>> for being itself, where it can proudly stand on it's own. But I'm just
>> not seeing it yet
>
> I thought the following brilliant feature was obvious?
>
> So your
On 13/02/13 at 12:39pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Purely out of morbid curiosity, I've just spent an hour playing with the
> Gnome 3 LiveCd in a VM.
>
> What I'm seeing is a KDE4 ripoff, done badly, plus a few MacOS-isms and
> some ideas from Unity:
>
> - Highly generic launcher on the left, just li
> I'm happy to be shown to be wrong and to be shown where Gnome3 has merit
> for being itself, where it can proudly stand on it's own. But I'm just
> not seeing it yet
I thought the following brilliant feature was obvious?
So your Gran has absolutely no chance of finding the "power off" button
so
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
