Actually there is another reason for socket activation to use AF_INET as
well as AF_UNIX: doing so prevents e.g. rpc.statd from port-squatting.
In fact, this is why CUPS no longer ships to ship a portreserve file.
Tim.
*/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
de
Am 24.08.2011 20:40, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 19:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Wed, 24.08.11 10:05, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
database. I'd like to support
Am 24.08.2011 19:36, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> On Wed, 24.08.11 10:45, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> Reindl Harald writes:
>>> Am 23.08.2011 23:28, schrieb Tom Lane:
there's no other way for "mysqladmin ping" to work, for example
>>
>>> and where is the problem?
>>
>> I'm n
On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
>> Some of the argument here is that it is difficult to do this from a remote
>> host. You'd have to engage in remote execution of software, e.g. using
>> nagios nrpe to remotely (from the nagi
On Aug 24, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:52:23 AM Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> That would require your nagios (or other monitoring) system to be running
>> systemd, which may not be the case for quite a while :)
>
> Why? When used to access remote machines s
On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 11:52:23 AM Jesse Keating wrote:
> That would require your nagios (or other monitoring) system to be running
> systemd, which may not be the case for quite a while :)
Why? When used to access remote machines systemctl shouldn't require running
systemd locally.
Lars
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
> Some of the argument here is that it is difficult to do this from a remote
> host. You'd have to engage in remote execution of software, e.g. using
> nagios nrpe to remotely (from the nagios system) execute commands on the
> database system to c
On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 24.08.11 10:10, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
>
FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
database. I'd like to support the option ... the problem is to do so
without b
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 19:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 24.08.11 10:05, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
> > > database. I'd like to support the option ... the problem is to do so
> > > with
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 20:19 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 24.08.11 10:10, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
>
> > >> FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
> > >> database. I'd like to support the option ... the problem is to do so
> > >
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 19:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 24.08.11 11:18, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
> > > database. I'd like to support the option ... the problem is to do so
> > > without break
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 19:44 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 24.08.11 10:56, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > > a random connection. There many reasons why you may have stopped the db
> > > > (or it may have stopped itself) and requires inspection before
> > > > attempting a n
On Wed, 24.08.11 10:10, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
> >> FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
> >> database. I'd like to support the option ... the problem is to do so
> >> without breaking existing, expected behaviors.
> >
> > It was noted
On Wed, 24.08.11 20:22, Alexander Kurtakov (akurt...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On 20:17:14 Wednesday 24 August 2011 Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 09:06 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > If the service is enabled but the daemon not currently running, is it
> > > > so terrible for a
On Wed, 24.08.11 17:09, Hans de Goede (hdego...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 08/24/2011 04:56 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 14:37 -0700, Adam Wi
On Wed, 24.08.11 10:05, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
> > database. I'd like to support the option ... the problem is to do so
> > without breaking existing, expected behaviors.
>
> It was noted up-thread
On Wed, 24.08.11 11:18, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > FWIW, I do think that there may be use-cases for socket activation of a
> > database. I'd like to support the option ... the problem is to do so
> > without breaking existing, expected behaviors.
>
> I am not sure you can, the only
On Wed, 24.08.11 11:40, Andrew McNabb (amcn...@mcnabbs.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:14:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > systemctl list-unit-files is what you are looking for. It's simpler even
> > than chkconfig --list.
>
> When I run "systemctl list-unit-files", I ge
On Wed, 24.08.11 10:56, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > a random connection. There many reasons why you may have stopped the db
> > > (or it may have stopped itself) and requires inspection before
> > > attempting a new restart. Having to battle with socket activation while
> > > in a cr
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Alexander Kurtakov
> wrote:
>
>> I want to add one more POV - not every database is constantly-used.
>> Example
>> usage is Amarok using mysql database and I really want mysql to not be
>> started
>> until
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:14:34PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> systemctl list-unit-files is what you are looking for. It's simpler even
> than chkconfig --list.
When I run "systemctl list-unit-files", I get a "Unknown operation
list-unit-files" error. Did you mean "systemctl list-units"
On Wed, 24.08.11 10:45, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Reindl Harald writes:
> > Am 23.08.2011 23:28, schrieb Tom Lane:
> >> there's no other way for "mysqladmin ping" to work, for example
>
> > and where is the problem?
>
> I'm not planning on repeating myself either, but: a database
>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> I want to add one more POV - not every database is constantly-used. Example
> usage is Amarok using mysql database and I really want mysql to not be
> started
> until I start Amarok. Not that this is very common usage scenario but
> sti
On 20:17:14 Wednesday 24 August 2011 Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 09:06 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > If the service is enabled but the daemon not currently running, is it
> > > so terrible for a connection test to cause the daemon to start?
> > > Remember, in systemd logic 'serv
On Aug 24, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simo Sorce writes:
>>> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> It generally is a bad idea to automat
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simo Sorce writes:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> It generally is a bad idea to automatically restart a database based on
> >>> a random connec
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 09:06 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > If the service is enabled but the daemon not currently running, is it so
> > terrible for a connection test to cause the daemon to start? Remember,
> > in systemd logic 'service enabled with socket activation, daemon not
> > currently runnin
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simo Sorce writes:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> It generally is a bad idea to automatically restart a database based on
> >>> a random connec
Simo Sorce writes:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> It generally is a bad idea to automatically restart a database based on
>>> a random connection. There many reasons why you may have stopped the db
>>>
Hi,
On 08/24/2011 04:56 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 14:37 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Why not?
If the service is enabled but the daemon no
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 15:10 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 14:37 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Why not?
> > >
> > > If the service is enabled but the daemon not currently running, is it so
> > > terrible f
Reindl Harald writes:
> Am 23.08.2011 23:28, schrieb Tom Lane:
>> there's no other way for "mysqladmin ping" to work, for example
> and where is the problem?
I'm not planning on repeating myself either, but: a database
*monitoring* tool, as opposed to a vanilla client, needs to know whether
the
FYI, I have placed JB on moderation on this list.
I'll be happy to let through posts that are not personal attacks.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Am 23.08.2011 23:28, schrieb Tom Lane:
> Yeah. Another way in which socket activation is not transparent is that
> code might try to determine whether the service is running by seeing
> whether a connection attempt succeeds.
well if you have enabled the service and a listening socket
it is th
Am 24.08.2011 15:04, schrieb Simo Sorce:
> I fail to see any reason why you would want to socket-activate a
> database. Either you need the database, so it should start asap, or
> don't
because systemd as shipped with F15 CAN NOT make sure that if it
means "i have started mysql" mysqld is ready
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:06:22AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 14:37 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Why not?
> >
> > If the service is enabled but the daemon not currently running, is it so
> > terrible for a connection test to cause the daemon to start? Remember,
> > in sy
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 09:05 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/23/2011 10:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Steve Grubb wrote:
> >> I think it was mentioned before that systemd is consuming a lot
> >> of memory.
> >
> > The amount quoted was actu
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 14:37 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simo Sorce writes:
> > > ... If instead the socket is listening but not really accepting and
> > > processing requests, then yes, you can have a deadlock.
> >
> > > So socket activat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/23/2011 10:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Steve Grubb wrote:
>> I think it was mentioned before that systemd is consuming a lot
>> of memory.
>
> The amount quoted was actually ridiculously small considering both
> today's memory sizes and the fac
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simo Sorce writes:
> > ... If instead the socket is listening but not really accepting and
> > processing requests, then yes, you can have a deadlock.
>
> > So socket activation is not transparent by any means and needs to be
> > handled very c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24/08/11 14:18, JB wrote:
> This guy is a loose cannon, with an outsized ego, but lacking UNIX
> understanding and design skills.
Ok, it's getting clear, both of you won't become best friends.
Assuming, all arguments were written to this list, p
JB gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> There is a video on Youtube (I can not find the link right now, it is on
> www.osnews.com article in comments section) from a German Linux sysadmin
> presentation in Munich, in 2009 I believe - with Lennart present in
> the audience and constantly interrupting the pr
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:18:57PM +, JB wrote:
> Richard Hughes gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > On 24 August 2011 01:35, JB gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...do not expect them to accept your sick "world domination" drive
> >
> > ...and this is why some upstream developers have unsubscribed from
>
Richard Hughes gmail.com> writes:
>
> On 24 August 2011 01:35, JB gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...do not expect them to accept your sick "world domination" drive
>
> ...and this is why some upstream developers have unsubscribed from
> fedora-devel list. Ever wonder why people like David Zeuthen
> uns
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:11:45PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another way of saying this is: people are used to being able to check
> if a service is up without thereby changing its state. Consider for
> example somebody who has a nagios alert set to check database server
> availability every few se
On 24 August 2011 01:35, JB wrote:
> ...do not expect them to accept your sick "world domination" drive
...and this is why some upstream developers have unsubscribed from
fedora-devel list. Ever wonder why people like David Zeuthen
unsubscribed? People like you.
I'm also ---> <--- this close to
Steve Grubb wrote:
> I think it was mentioned before that systemd is consuming a lot of memory.
The amount quoted was actually ridiculously small considering both today's
memory sizes and the fact that systemd is a singleton process.
Plus, it can be reduced even further (by something like 90%!)
Lennart, please don't shut off and stop listening just yet.
I realize that your rant was aimed at this whole thread rather than at my post
specifically, but I'd like to make it clear that I'm not one of those who "keep
trying to noisily shoot systemd down" as you put it. I see a lot of value in
On 08/24/2011 06:05 AM, JB wrote:
> Lennart,
>
> we are not going to sacrify UNIX/Linux, SysVinit, even systemd (the product
> of you, your co-developers, and ... imported ideas from "one song for one USD"
> company) for your ego, which is larger than life.
This type of personal attacks in this li
Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
> ...
> I really honestly wished the troupe of you four or five people who keep
> trying to noisily shoot systemd down on fedora-devel would actually try
> to understand what is going on. Try to get the bigger picture. Try for
> once to see if there might b
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Wed, 24.08.11 00:24, Björn Persson (bjorn@rombobjörn.se) wrote:
>> Imagine a stripped-down Init that does only two things: First it forks and
>> executes SystemD, and then it just sits around and reaps orphan zombies.
>> SystemD would
JB wrote:
> Björn Persson xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> writes:
> > JB wrote:
> > > This does not help in this case. The attack's effect can happen at any
> > > time and catch systemd with its pants down at any time in the
> > > scenarios you described.
> > > The attack is on socket buffer availability vi
On Wed, 24.08.11 00:24, Björn Persson (bjorn@rombobjörn.se) wrote:
> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > Well, socket activation gives you better speed and resource usage as
> > already mentioned, but it also gives you:
> >
> [some really nifty features]
> >
> > So basically, much improved service availab
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 18:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another way of saying this is: people are used to being able to check
> if a service is up without thereby changing its state. Consider for
Well, again, it's arguable that this describes the systemd case. You
have not changed the state of *the
On Tue, 23.08.11 18:11, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
> I think that one of the worst aspects of systemd is its assumption that
> it can force new world-views upon every other piece of software in the
> system :-(. But anyway, here's an example of why this is a problem:
> when we tried to cod
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> Well, socket activation gives you better speed and resource usage as
> already mentioned, but it also gives you:
>
[some really nifty features]
>
> So basically, much improved service availability (which is what matters
> to your business, isn't it?), and easier configurat
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. Another way in which socket activation is not transparent is that
>> code might try to determine whether the service is running by seeing
>> whether a connection attempt succeeds. In such a case, having the
>>
Björn Persson xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> writes:
>
> JB wrote:
> > This does not help in this case. The attack's effect can happen at any time
> > and catch systemd with its pants down at any time in the scenarios you
> > described.
> > The attack is on socket buffer availability via kernel, it lasts
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simo Sorce writes:
> > ... If instead the socket is listening but not really accepting and
> > processing requests, then yes, you can have a deadlock.
>
> > So socket activation is not transparent by any means and needs to be
> > handled very c
JB wrote:
> This does not help in this case. The attack's effect can happen at any time
> and catch systemd with its pants down at any time in the scenarios you
> described.
> The attack is on socket buffer availability via kernel, it lasts until no
> resource is available system-wide. At that poin
Simo Sorce writes:
> ... If instead the socket is listening but not really accepting and
> processing requests, then yes, you can have a deadlock.
> So socket activation is not transparent by any means and needs to be
> handled very carefully in terms of circular dependencies as they may
> actual
Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
>
> On Tue, 23.08.11 17:48, JB (jb.1234abcd gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Systemd and security - an example # 2 of an attack venue.
> > -
> > The above is dangerous as a design idea to achieve "paralleliz
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 21:33 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 23.08.11 17:48, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Systemd and security - an example # 2 of an attack venue.
> > -
> > The above is dangerous as a design idea to achi
Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) said:
> > A socket-activated service is much the same as a non-socket-activated
> > service, in that installing the unit won't activate the service unless
> > something calls for it, or the admin/rpm scripts run 'systemctl enable'. So
>
> A couple of questi
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:12:31PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> > On 08/18/2011 06:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 17.08.11 16:43, Tim Waugh (twa...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> >
On Tue, 23.08.11 13:54, Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:37, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said:
> >> On 08/22/2011 01:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> > I'm pretty sure that we kicked this up to FESCo and they decide
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:37, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said:
>> On 08/22/2011 01:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > I'm pretty sure that we kicked this up to FESCo and they decided to treat
>> > them the same (although the latter may not have come to a formal vo
Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said:
> On 08/22/2011 01:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that we kicked this up to FESCo and they decided to treat
> > them the same (although the latter may not have come to a formal vote and
> > only been discussed during their IRC meetings on
On Tue, 23.08.11 17:48, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Systemd and security - an example # 2 of an attack venue.
> -
> The above is dangerous as a design idea to achieve "parallelization" of
> services.
> Let's assume that service A is a
Steve Clark netwolves.com> writes:
> ...
> Sys init.
> -
> Sys init as a process #1 should be "beyond approach" by design, and delegate
> all work to other process(es), whether in a permanent or an ad-hoc manner,
> that can be operated by sysadmin if needed (e.g. restarted, initialized,
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 07:29 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > > This is broken IMO ... there is nothing inherently wrong with on
> > > demand loading ... actually it is the opposite. (i.e should be done
> > > whenever possible).
> > >
> > On demand load
On 08/23/2011 01:48 PM, JB wrote:
JB gmail.com> writes:
...
Here are some more detailed thoughts.
Sys init.
-
Sys init as a process #1 should be "beyond approach" by design, and delegate
all work to other process(es), whether in a permanent or an ad-hoc manner,
that can be operated
JB gmail.com> writes:
> ...
Here are some more detailed thoughts.
Sys init.
-
Sys init as a process #1 should be "beyond approach" by design, and delegate
all work to other process(es), whether in a permanent or an ad-hoc manner,
that can be operated by sysadmin if needed (e.g. restart
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 07:29 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > This is broken IMO ... there is nothing inherently wrong with on
> > demand loading ... actually it is the opposite. (i.e should be done
> > whenever possible).
> >
> On demand loading is great. But the system administrator needs to ha
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 18:14 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 23.08.11 11:56, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:44 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23.08.11 11:10, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I am pretty sure tha
On Tue, 23.08.11 11:56, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:44 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Tue, 23.08.11 11:10, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > I am pretty sure that 95% of everybody who has ssd or CUPS installed
> > > > will not use it mo
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:44 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 23.08.11 11:10, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > I am pretty sure that 95% of everybody who has ssd or CUPS installed
> > > will not use it more often than than 1/h, which is really seldom. Hence
> > > I'd make these
On Tue, 23.08.11 11:10, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > I am pretty sure that 95% of everybody who has ssd or CUPS installed
> > will not use it more often than than 1/h, which is really seldom. Hence
> > I'd make these services socket activated by default (like MacOS does it
> > too), and
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 16:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 23.08.11 07:29, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > > > I think FESCo needs to decide what its policies are wrt on-demand
> > > > loading, then we can adjust the Packaging Guidelines appropriately.
> > >
> > > Th
On Tue, 23.08.11 07:29, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > I think FESCo needs to decide what its policies are wrt on-demand
> > > loading, then we can adjust the Packaging Guidelines appropriately.
> >
> > This is broken IMO ... there is nothing inherently wrong with on
> > demand
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:12:31PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> > On 08/18/2011 06:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17.08.11 16:43, Tim Waugh (twa...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh, I just noticed this:
> >>>
> >>> https://fedoraproj
On 08/18/2011 06:29 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Unlikely. CUPS is not that slow. I mean, if the dialog takes a second or
> so this would still be completely fine, but in real life CUPS starts
> much faster. On my machine it is very hard to see any difference at all
> if I run "lpq" on a shell
On 08/22/2011 06:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and finally this idiotic discussion should have been
> finished BEFORE release F15 wth sytemd and not at a
> time where it is defacto too late because no one is gonna
> fixing the bugs and wrong decisions for F15 this time
Mr. Harald,
This sort of to
On Monday, August 22, 2011 08:32:57 PM Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 22.08.11 17:19, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:09 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > > On 08/22/2011 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steve
On 23 August 2011 12:01, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I'll blog about it and use colord as an example. I'll ping you when I
> have done that.
Legend, thanks.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 06:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Wed, 17.08.11 16:43, Tim Waugh (twa...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I just noticed this:
>>>
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines:Systemd#Socket_activation
>>> "Since
On Tue, 23.08.11 11:53, Richard Hughes (hughsi...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> On 23 August 2011 01:32, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > This is something we should
> > set for a number of services which never should get network access, like
> > upower, dbus, or colord.
>
> As the upstream for two of tho
On 23 August 2011 01:32, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> This is something we should
> set for a number of services which never should get network access, like
> upower, dbus, or colord.
As the upstream for two of those, what do I need to do? At the moment
both upower and colord are system activated
On Mon, 22.08.11 21:22, Jef Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>
> > In fact, systemd offers quite a number security features to secure your
> > services wich can be easily used to enhance local security. I'll
> > probably blog abou
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> In fact, systemd offers quite a number security features to secure your
> services wich can be easily used to enhance local security. I'll
> probably blog about this soonishly, but there's a lot of nice stuff in
> there. For example, set
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:09 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 08/22/2011 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> >
> >>> -Steve
> >> Obviously a lot on this list value boot up speed over security!
> >
> > You're making a false assumption, whic
On Mon, 22.08.11 17:19, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:09 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > On 08/22/2011 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> > >
> > >>> -Steve
> > >> Obviously a lot on this li
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:09 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 08/22/2011 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> >
> >>> -Steve
> >> Obviously a lot on this list value boot up speed over security!
> >
> > You're making a false assumption, whic
On 08/22/2011 07:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
>
>>> -Steve
>> Obviously a lot on this list value boot up speed over security!
>
> You're making a false assumption, which is that socket activation is
> only about speed. It's also about resou
On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 17:09 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> > -Steve
> Obviously a lot on this list value boot up speed over security!
You're making a false assumption, which is that socket activation is
only about speed. It's also about resource usage. (There may be other
advantages I haven't consid
On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 20:34 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> You're not seeing the hundreds - no thousands of emails about systemd? You
> are not
Most of which seem to come from you, Reindl, or Steve Clark; a very
active cabal doth not a rebellion make.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
Am 22.08.2011 23:58, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:15:38 +0200
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 22.08.2011 23:01, schrieb Tom Callaway:
>>> On 08/22/2011 04:41 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I'd vote for simply making this an implementation detail of the
package. I.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:15:38 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 22.08.2011 23:01, schrieb Tom Callaway:
> > On 08/22/2011 04:41 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >> I'd vote for simply making this an implementation detail of the
> >> package. I.e. if a package gets the permission to enable its
>
Am 22.08.2011 23:01, schrieb Tom Callaway:
> On 08/22/2011 04:41 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> I'd vote for simply making this an implementation detail of the
>> package. I.e. if a package gets the permission to enable its service by
>> default it's up to it whether it wants to be started at b
On 08/22/2011 04:41 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I'd vote for simply making this an implementation detail of the
> package. I.e. if a package gets the permission to enable its service by
> default it's up to it whether it wants to be started at boot or via
> socket actviation of via any other ki
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
