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
13 matches
Mail list logo
