hi Lennart,
Oh! I understand. Thanks you very much.
thanks,
Byron
At 2020-04-10 01:02:17, "Lennart Poettering" wrote:
>On Do, 09.04.20 21:27, www ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> when I add a new object to dbus, and will send a signal(named
>> InterfacesAdded) t
Hello Systemd developers!
> I asked this question earlier but I haven’t gotten any reply so I thought
> asking again.
> Question regarding sd_bus_add_match (sd-bus.c):
>
> Is there any bad consequences to use the same callback for multiple signal
> match and then using the userdata parameter t
On Do, 09.04.20 21:27, www ([email protected]) wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> when I add a new object to dbus, and will send a signal(named
> InterfacesAdded) to "org.freedesktop.Dbus.ObjectManager". I want to
> ask, who is going to handle this signal? What did it do? Where is
> the code?
Note sure I
вт, 7 апр. 2020 г. в 14:09, Lennart Poettering :
>
> On Di, 07.04.20 11:26, Matwey V. Kornilov ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like my system to reboot (with some cool down timeout) on
> > emergency.target instead of running the emergency shell. What would be
> > the re
Dear all,
when I add a new object to dbus, and will send a signal(named InterfacesAdded)
to "org.freedesktop.Dbus.ObjectManager". I want to ask, who is going to handle
this signal? What did it do? Where is the code?
thanks,
Byron___
systemd-devel ma
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 02:28:13PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:01:56 +0200
> Michał Zegan wrote:
>
> > W dniu 09.04.2020 o 10:23, Pekka Paalanen pisze:
> > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:46:08 +0200
> > > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fr, 03.04.20 10:28, Pekka Pa
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:01:56 +0200
Michał Zegan wrote:
> W dniu 09.04.2020 o 10:23, Pekka Paalanen pisze:
> > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:46:08 +0200
> > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> >> On Fr, 03.04.20 10:28, Pekka Paalanen ([email protected]) wrote:
> >>
> My (maybe bad) guess is that i
W dniu 09.04.2020 o 10:23, Pekka Paalanen pisze:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:46:08 +0200
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
>> On Fr, 03.04.20 10:28, Pekka Paalanen ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
My (maybe bad) guess is that it would need to be addressed in the kernel
though
And the Can
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:46:08 +0200
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fr, 03.04.20 10:28, Pekka Paalanen ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> > > My (maybe bad) guess is that it would need to be addressed in the kernel
> > > though
> > > And the CanMultiSession attribute on non-seat0 doesn't matter when
On Fr, 03.04.20 10:28, Pekka Paalanen ([email protected]) wrote:
> > My (maybe bad) guess is that it would need to be addressed in the kernel
> > though
> > And the CanMultiSession attribute on non-seat0 doesn't matter when the
> > problem
> > is all input from all devices gets sent to seat0 w
On Do, 02.04.20 22:59, nerdopolis ([email protected]) wrote:
> Thanks. I was wondering if there was some security thing that depended on TTYs
> for the two Display Servers running on the same seat to truly be secure or
> not.
> (like reading /dev/input/* )
The input subsystem has io
On Mi, 08.04.20 20:58, Andy Pieters ([email protected]) wrote:
> Hi list
>
> I'm trying to satisfy PCI requirements by having on-access virus
> scanning on servers involved with card-holder data.
>
> Normally we could use clamav which has got on-access scanning, but
> this has been removed
12 matches
Mail list logo
