On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Jeremy Huntwork
wrote:
> On 8/11/10 12:40 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Actually, for LSB compliance, the 'distribution supplied boot scripts'
>> need not use /lib/lsb/init-functions at all. All that is required is
>> that the scripts provide the LSB header information,
On 8/23/10 11:12 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 08/23/2010 08:27 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Ahh, yes. That was added a few weeks ago with the new killall. Fixed
>> real quick in r9365.
>
> And my hasty ignorance in r9366. Sorry about that.
Heh, no worries, I was just glad the fix went in. :)
Jeremy
--
On 08/23/2010 08:27 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Ahh, yes. That was added a few weeks ago with the new killall. Fixed
> real quick in r9365.
And my hasty ignorance in r9366. Sorry about that.
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clea
On 08/23/2010 04:12 AM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 8/11/10 12:40 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> Actually, for LSB compliance, the 'distribution supplied boot scripts'
>> need not use /lib/lsb/init-functions at all. All that is required is
>> that the scripts provide the LSB header information, and can th
On 8/11/10 12:40 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Actually, for LSB compliance, the 'distribution supplied boot scripts'
> need not use /lib/lsb/init-functions at all. All that is required is
> that the scripts provide the LSB header information, and can therefor be
> manipulated by {install,remove}_initd.
On 8/11/10 12:49 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> I hope this doesn't break threading as my previous message was too slow
> in getting here, so I just obliterated the next response in thread to
> hopefully provide proper quoting.
I've got to figure out why things are still taking so long...
Greylisting has
On 8/11/10 12:49 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> I hope this doesn't break threading as my previous message was too slow
> in getting here, so I just obliterated the next response in thread to
> hopefully provide proper quoting.
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dj/lfs-6.6-lsb-v3.patch
Awesome thanks.
J
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:49:50 -0600,
Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Apparently it should be supplied by sysvinit (see, for example,
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/i386/sysvinit-utils/filelist). It was
> apparently added in 2.86ds1-62
added to sysvin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:38:50 -0400,
Jeremy Huntwork escribió:
> Personally, I love the flexibility that chkconfig gives you, both for
> managing your scripts and for being able to quickly modify their
> parameters without having to slave over symlink
On 08/10/2010 11:40 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 8/10/10 4:45 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> If there were updates to the bootscripts to make them LSB compliant, I
>> would support that. I think that the chkconfig program should be
>> deferred to BLFS though.
>
>
> I even patch my jhalfs copy of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/10/2010 03:45 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> Hey All,
>>
>> So with my LightCube OS project (which is actually nearing first alpha
>> release), I am at the point where I need to decide what to do for boot
>> scripts. I have
On 8/10/10 6:49 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Having got so used to doing this at work just recently, I wondered why LFS
> didn't have the
> 'service' binary. Apparently it should be supplied by sysvinit (see, for
> example,
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/i386/sysvinit-utils/filelist). It wa
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 18:49, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:38:50 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
> wrote:
>
>> Another request for inclusion would be a wrapper script for the
>> bootscripts like fedora's 'service' which essentially just calls the
>> appropriate script with parameters
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:38:50 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork
wrote:
> Another request for inclusion would be a wrapper script for the
> bootscripts like fedora's 'service' which essentially just calls the
> appropriate script with parameters so one can type:
>
> service name start
Having got so used to
On 8/10/10 4:45 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If there were updates to the bootscripts to make them LSB compliant, I
> would support that. I think that the chkconfig program should be
> deferred to BLFS though.
Possibly, except that the scripts themselves should have chkconfig
parameters in them - an
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> So with my LightCube OS project (which is actually nearing first alpha
> release), I am at the point where I need to decide what to do for boot
> scripts. I have been using LFS and BLFS scripts up to now, but I'm not
> sure if I will continue to do so in th
Hey All,
So with my LightCube OS project (which is actually nearing first alpha
release), I am at the point where I need to decide what to do for boot
scripts. I have been using LFS and BLFS scripts up to now, but I'm not
sure if I will continue to do so in the future.
(I also played with syst
17 matches
Mail list logo
