On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 03:00:39PM -0400, Will Woods wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 03:27 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > fedup-system-upgrade.service uses an additional flag file which is
> > checked with ConditionPathExists so it will not run if 'dnf fedup
> > reboot'
> > did no
Have a look at the openvpn package in Debian. It implements something
like you have in mind.
There are multiple [email protected] instances and a single
openvpn.service which can be used by the admin to start/stop/restart
them.
2015-07-21 13:43 GMT+02:00 Marc Haber :
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to system
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> And then people can do e.g.:
> systemctl enable [email protected] [email protected]
> systemctl start nifty@*.service
> systemctl stop nifty@*.service
As I mentioned in my original mail, this is explictly not wanted, as
most users
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 03:27 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> fedup-system-upgrade.service uses an additional flag file which is
> checked with ConditionPathExists so it will not run if 'dnf fedup
> reboot'
> did not create the flag, even if we go into system-upgrade.target.
>
> packag
On 07/21/2015 01:52 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> We have quite a zoo of services which listen on localhost, on a fixed
>> TCP port, for use by local clients. The canonical example is PostgreSQL
>> on 5432/TCP, for the benefit of Jav
Heya,
On 21 July 2015 at 12:43, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to systemd'ize a daemon which is useful to be run in two
> instances. It is usually the case that both instances need to be
> started and stopped simultaneously, and the local admin would want a
> _single_ command to start
Hi there,
I seem to have come across a couple of issues with udevd v219's
configuration of Ethernet link-level parameters specified in .link
files, in particular the speed and duplex settings. Firstly, the speed
and duplex ioctl() call is succeeding but without any changes taking
effect on the in
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> In this case, I'd perhaps recommend NOT including [Install] sections fir
> your two .service files and instead make your "make install" action
> write symlinks into /usr/lib/systemd/system/nifty.target.wants.d/ thus
> the user could n
Marc Haber wrote on 21/07/15 12:43:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to systemd'ize a daemon which is useful to be run in two
> instances. It is usually the case that both instances need to be
> started and stopped simultaneously, and the local admin would want a
> _single_ command to start and stop both ins
Hi Alexandre,
thanks for your fast answer and correctly guessing my Distribution ,-)
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 02:13:12PM +0200, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> Le mardi 21 juillet 2015, 13:43:48 Marc Haber a écrit :
> > This works as designed. Unfortunately, my Distribution's build tools
> > don't hand
Le mardi 21 juillet 2015, 13:43:48 Marc Haber a écrit :
> This works as designed. Unfortunately, my Distribution's build tools
> don't handle package-provided targets too well, and I feel that using
> a target here is kind of wrong anyway.
Hi,
Package-provided targets works well,
but by default d
Hi
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Kinsella, Ray wrote:
> There is a bug in GCC LTO such that it ignores assembler directives.
> This patch makes LTO enabled by default but also allows it to be disabled
> if required.
>
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47785
This is a gcc bug.
Hi
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> We have quite a zoo of services which listen on localhost, on a fixed
> TCP port, for use by local clients. The canonical example is PostgreSQL
> on 5432/TCP, for the benefit of Java clients (which cannot use the UNIX
> domain socket).
Hi,
I am trying to systemd'ize a daemon which is useful to be run in two
instances. It is usually the case that both instances need to be
started and stopped simultaneously, and the local admin would want a
_single_ command to start and stop both instances. Therefore, an
"umbrella" is needed.
As
Hi
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> And that's fine. But doing hardening for UID=0 services seems a very
> bad practice to me because it looks like someone is assuming that UID=0
> without capabilities is just another “nobody” user. Which is not
> surprising, because cap
We have quite a zoo of services which listen on localhost, on a fixed
TCP port, for use by local clients. The canonical example is PostgreSQL
on 5432/TCP, for the benefit of Java clients (which cannot use the UNIX
domain socket). This has the obvious issue that if a local attacker
crashes the ser
Hi
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:26 PM, David Härdeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 09:22:45AM +0200, David Härdeman wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 04:25:29PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
>>>On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, David Härdeman wrote:
>>...
Now, a question...how is an object ma
On 07/20/2015 02:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 20.07.2015 um 13:58 schrieb Florian Weimer:
>> On 07/20/2015 01:52 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 20.07.2015 um 13:24 schrieb Florian Weimer:
CapabilityBoundingSet=CAP_IPC_OWNER CAP_SETUID CAP_SETGID CAP_SETPCAP
m4_ifdef(`HA
18 matches
Mail list logo
