Daniel Lezcano writes:
> On 07/15/2010 10:07 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> Daniel Lezcano writes:
>>
>>> On 06/09/2010 07:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>>>
here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected
and some unrelated documentation added. It actual
On 07/15/2010 10:07 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano writes:
>
>
>> On 06/09/2010 07:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>>
>>
>>> here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected
>>> and some unrelated documentation added. It actually survived some
>>> targeted
Daniel Lezcano writes:
> On 06/09/2010 07:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected
>> and some unrelated documentation added. It actually survived some
>> targeted testing in the past days and seems to behave as expected, ie.
>>
>>
On 06/09/2010 07:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected
> and some unrelated documentation added. It actually survived some
> targeted testing in the past days and seems to behave as expected, ie.
>
> # lxc-start -n s -- sh -c
atp writes:
>>> Interestingly, it stays in S state until
>>> I kill the container. I'm afraid the console functionality (is there
>>> any documentation for it?) may make lxc-start unsuitable for pushing
>>> into the background. After all, it is an interactive foreground process
>>> in that case,
Hi,
Apologies if this is the wrong list.
> > Interestingly, it stays in S state until
> > I kill the container. I'm afraid the console functionality (is there
> > any documentation for it?) may make lxc-start unsuitable for pushing
> > into the background. After all, it is an interactive foregro
On 06/15/2010 02:13 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
Daniel Lezcano writes:
On 06/10/2010 11:47 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
If you provide me with an example (and some description of
lxc.console), I can give it some testing and concretize this pure
guesswork.
lxc-create -n ubuntu -f
On 06/15/2010 04:47 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano writes:
>
>> On 06/15/2010 02:13 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel Lezcano writes:
>>>
On 06/10/2010 11:47 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> If you provide me with an example (and some description of
> lxc.console), I
Daniel Lezcano writes:
> On 06/15/2010 02:13 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> Daniel Lezcano writes:
>>
>>> On 06/10/2010 11:47 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>>>
If you provide me with an example (and some description of
lxc.console), I can give it some testing and concretize this pu
Daniel Lezcano writes:
> On 06/10/2010 11:47 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> If you provide me with an example (and some description of
>> lxc.console), I can give it some testing and concretize this pure
>> guesswork.
>
> lxc-create -n ubuntu -f ~/mynetwork.conf -t ubuntu
> lxc-start -n ubuntu -s
Ferenc Wagner writes:
> I admittedly didn't test running lxc-start in the background, but it
> blocks SIGTTOU, so it should be unaffected...
Thinking again, maybe we could turn the table and change the process
group ID of lxc-start instead, thereby putting it into the background.
No, that sounds
Daniel Lezcano writes:
> On 06/09/2010 07:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected
>> and some unrelated documentation added. It actually survived some
>> targeted testing in the past days and seems to behave as expected, ie.
>>
>>
On 06/09/2010 07:56 PM, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected
> and some unrelated documentation added. It actually survived some
> targeted testing in the past days and seems to behave as expected, ie.
>
> # lxc-start -n s -- sh -c
Hi,
here are basically the same patches, with some obvious errors corrected
and some unrelated documentation added. It actually survived some
targeted testing in the past days and seems to behave as expected, ie.
# lxc-start -n s -- sh -c "trap 'echo TERM' TERM; sleep 10"
can be interrupted by
14 matches
Mail list logo
