On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 02:23:02 +, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> It didn't start because the service unit was wrong.
>
> A quick check of the log revealed that the service was trying to create
> a local-domain socket at |/run/lirc/lircd| . But there was no
> |/run/lirc/| directory on my sys
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
It didn't start because the service unit was wrong.
A quick check of the log revealed that the service was trying to
create a local-domain socket at |/run/lirc/lircd| . But there was no
|/run/lirc/| directory on my system to contain that. Your systemd
units didn'
Hi!
Thansk for long reply!
On 17/01/16 03:23, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
Michael Biebl:
I wonder if nosh could be an option for non-linux. According to its
website it supports native systemd service files.
This caught my eye, so I thought that I'd demonstrate. Before getting
to what
Michael Biebl:
I wonder if nosh could be an option for non-linux. According to its
website it supports native systemd service files. I have to admit
though, I never looked at nosh myself, so I have no idea how far that
"systemd support" goes.
This caught my eye, so I thought that I'd demonst
On 15/01/16 21:58, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote:
Hi
On 2016-01-15, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 15/01/16 21:06, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.01.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 15/01/16 19:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
If the names do not match, you can ship a (static) symlink in the
package,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:07:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> It's not only about downstreams. What about e.g. Debian-kFreeBSD, or
> Debian-Hurd?
Debian/kFreeBSD is a supported architecture, but Debian-Hurd is currently
unofficial.
Le vendredi 15 janvier 2016, 21:58:18 Anthony DeRobertis a écrit :
> On 01/15/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Reyer wrote:
> > Does this also work somehow for e.g. foo-daily.service +
> > foo-daily.timer being favored over /etc/cron.daily/foo? Next to a
> > foo.service being favored over /etc/init.d/foo. Tha
On 01/15/2016 09:29 PM, Jens Reyer wrote:
Does this also work somehow for e.g. foo-daily.service +
foo-daily.timer being favored over /etc/cron.daily/foo? Next to a
foo.service being favored over /etc/init.d/foo. Thanks and greets jre
No, it won't work automatically. Cron doesn't look at syst
On 01/15/2016 09:06 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> If your package ships both a systemd service unit and a sysv init
> script, you need to make sure that under systemd the native service file
> is used.
> The easiest way to achieve that is to use the same names for the unit
> file and the init script,
+++ Russ Allbery [2016-01-15 10:04 -0800]:
> Alec Leamas writes:
>
> > Given all this: would it be OK to drop the sysV files in a stretch
> > update?
Please don't. Some people still use sysVinit and expect things to work
more-or-less as they did previously.
> I feel like removing the sysvinit
Am 15.01.2016 um 21:56 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> An example for that is alsa-utils:
> The sysv init script is named
>
> /etc/init.d/alsa-utils
>
> The systemd service units:
> /lib/systemd/system/alsa-store.service
> /lib/systemd/system/alsa-state.service
> /lib/systemd/system/alsa-restore.service
Hi
On 2016-01-15, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 15/01/16 21:06, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Am 15.01.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Alec Leamas:
> >> On 15/01/16 19:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> > If the names do not match, you can ship a (static) symlink in the
> > package, say you have
> > /etc/init.d/foo a
Am 15.01.2016 um 21:48 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Hi Alec
>
> Am 15.01.2016 um 21:42 schrieb Alec Leamas:
>> It's more complicated. The systemd setup is three different services,
>> the sysV one. There is no systemd service directly corresponding to
>> the sysV one. In other words, here is two th
Hi Alec
Am 15.01.2016 um 21:42 schrieb Alec Leamas:
> It's more complicated. The systemd setup is three different services,
> the sysV one. There is no systemd service directly corresponding to
> the sysV one. In other words, here is two things taking place at once:
> a major upgrade + sysV ->
Hi
On 2016-01-15, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 15/01/16 19:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >
> > I feel like removing the sysvinit scripts entirely would be "reverting
> > existing support without a compelling reason." But I also think that
> > people who want to use sysvinit (or upstart, or any other init
On 15/01/16 21:06, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.01.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 15/01/16 19:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
I feel like removing the sysvinit scripts entirely would be "reverting
existing support without a compelling reason." But I also think that
people who want to use sysvini
Am 15.01.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Alec Leamas:
> On 15/01/16 19:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> I feel like removing the sysvinit scripts entirely would be "reverting
>> existing support without a compelling reason." But I also think that
>> people who want to use sysvinit (or upstart, or any other ini
On 15/01/16 19:04, Russ Allbery wrote:
I feel like removing the sysvinit scripts entirely would be "reverting
existing support without a compelling reason." But I also think that
people who want to use sysvinit (or upstart, or any other init system)
will have to contribute some support there in
Am 15.01.2016 um 16:07 schrieb The Wanderer:
> It's not only about downstreams. What about e.g. Debian-kFreeBSD, or
> Debian-Hurd? Both are theoretically official Debian, as far as I
> understand matters, rather than being downstream distros - but neither
> one is supported by systemd.
I wonder if
Alec Leamas writes:
> In the process of a complicated update, there is a question about how to
> handle the systemV init scripts when doing the systemd transition.
> The package (lirc) has upstream systemd scripts which of course are
> packaged. The existing Debian version has sysV scripts. Howe
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:45:30PM +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> Support for users not using systemd. I understand that such users will be
> unhappy without the scripts - but am I obliged under current policy
> decisions to maintain this configuration?
Up until the next stable release at least, you
On 2016-01-15 at 09:45, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 15/01/16 14:13, Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
>
>> Alec Leamas writes:
>>
>>> Dear list,
>>> Given all this: would it be OK to drop the sysV files in a
>>> stretch update?
>>
>> I suppose it's not okay, because you'll get a lot of bug reports
>> from no
On 15/01/16 14:13, Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
Alec Leamas writes:
Dear list,
Given all this: would it be OK to drop the sysV files in a stretch update?
I suppose it's not okay, because you'll get a lot of bug reports from
non-linux based debian distributions. And if it's not your business, an
Alec Leamas writes:
> Dear list,
>
> In the process of a complicated update, there is a question about how
> to handle the systemV init scripts when doing the systemd transition.
>
> The package (lirc) has upstream systemd scripts which of course are
> packaged. The existing Debian version has sy
24 matches
Mail list logo
