Re: [systemd-devel] License of systemd API

2013-09-26 Thread Adam Spragg
On 2013-09-26 17:11, Lennart Poettering wrote: And besides that: the glibc headers carry the word for word identical copyright header (only replacing "systemd" by "GNU C Library"). So if those headers are OK for usage with OpenRC the systemd headers should be too. But, if I understand correct

Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC/PATCH] journal over the network

2012-11-20 Thread Adam Spragg
On Tuesday 20 Nov 2012 01:21:54 Lennart Poettering wrote: > My intention was to speak only HTTP for all of this, so that we can > nicely work through firewalls. Wait, I thought one of the guiding principles of systemd was to do things The Right Way, and not use ugly workarounds for other people's

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] service: allow service to inhibit respawn with special return code

2012-08-06 Thread Adam Spragg
On Monday 06 Aug 2012 12:16:02 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 06.08.12 12:06, Kay Sievers ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > How about: > > ExitStatusFailure= > > ExitStatusSuccess= > > success and failure should be parititions of > the exit status set, i.e. all exits that are not failure ar

Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] add org.freedesktop.DBus.Properies.Set method

2011-03-07 Thread Adam Spragg
On Monday 07 Mar 2011 17:32:33 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > wrote: > > Seems incomplete, as it doesnt actually include the .vimrc file? > > I did not intend to force my personal vim style on anyone, just make > it sure people can add custom .vimrc with whatever settings are deemed > appropriate. Th

Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system

2011-02-25 Thread Adam Spragg
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:35:14 Adam Spragg wrote: > On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > Commit > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17 > > c 2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really

Re: [systemd-devel] /usr on separate file system

2011-02-25 Thread Adam Spragg
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > Commit > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c > 2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason > for it? This does seem odd. Might I also point out... >From

Re: [systemd-devel] 'tasks' as first-order objects?

2010-08-13 Thread Adam Spragg
On Friday 13 Aug 2010 15:54:28 Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 13.08.10 00:18, Adam Spragg ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > So [auditctl] would be something to set to "Type=finish" and > > > > "ValidNoProcess=no". > > > > >

Re: [systemd-devel] 'tasks' as first-order objects?

2010-08-12 Thread Adam Spragg
On Thursday 12 Aug 2010 20:56:33 Bill Nottingham wrote: > Lennart Poettering ([email protected]) said: > > Well, "Type=finish" is supposed to be exactly what Upstart calls > > "tasks". I must admit that the word "finish" for this sucks, so we are > > open to change this to make it more discove

[systemd-devel] Improved systemd service configuration from LSB init scripts?

2010-06-07 Thread Adam Spragg
Hi there. I was working on something earlier today which caused me to look at LSB init script headers, and it made me think of the systemd ability to use "legacy" LSB init scripts for "service" configuration, with the following query: Does anyone think it would be useful to use the local extens