Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 23:39 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 21:50 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> apologies for the length, but how is everyone else handling this?
> this is
Hi Daniel, Suno, list.
I am happy for my efforts to be pillaged and merged with a unified
effort. Just let me know where to look.
I might be able to contribute some effort over time, though I'm not
using containers day-to-day any more. Hopefully as lxc improves, I'll
be able to change back :)
Re
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 01:01 -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
: - Snip...
> FOUND IT!
> [r...@alcove ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/accept_ra
> 1
> r...@ubuntu:~# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/accept_ra
> 0
> That's what was killing me and blocking autoconf in Debian. I set that
> to 1
Mike> I don't want to start a flame war but, honestly, I feel that one
Mike> follows the other. I have used Debian (vanilla, Knoppix, and
Mike> Ubuntu) and even spun a custom distro based on Knoppix and I am
Mike> not at all surprised that, if you are with Debian, you find
Mike> bridges annoying. I
> For logging the container output, we can create a tty in lxc-start.c,
> map the slave endpoint to /dev/console and proxy the master to the real
> tty.
> That allows to:
> * solve the problem of the init process which stole the terminal tty,
> letting us in a terminal without the controling tty
>
> I was wondering if we shouldn't separate the "init-logger" features.
>
> For logging the container output, we can create a tty in lxc-start.c,
> map the slave endpoint to /dev/console and proxy the master to the real
> tty.
> That allows to:
> * solve the problem of the init process which stole
