On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp
> ---
> meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox.inc | 12 +++--
> meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.23.1.bb | 2 +
> meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/busybox-ntpd | 54
> +++
>
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp
---
meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox.inc | 12 +++--
meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.23.1.bb | 2 +
meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/busybox-ntpd | 54 +++
meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/busybox-ntpd.conf | 2 +
4 files
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Alexandre Belloni
wrote:
> On 01/03/2015 at 13:48:11 +, Laszlo Papp wrote :
>> I finally decided to get this patch another go, even though still no
>> busybox daemon has LSB headers, but I would need to ask for some prime
>> example of LSB headers that I can sta
On 01/03/2015 at 13:48:11 +, Laszlo Papp wrote :
> I finally decided to get this patch another go, even though still no
> busybox daemon has LSB headers, but I would need to ask for some prime
> example of LSB headers that I can start off with. Could anyone please
> provide me a good example fo
I finally decided to get this patch another go, even though still no
busybox daemon has LSB headers, but I would need to ask for some prime
example of LSB headers that I can start off with. Could anyone please
provide me a good example for that from the Yocto project? Thanks.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014
Any reason why this feature has never got in? It was submitted more than
five months ago, and it would have added some feature to the system even if
not _everything_ right from the beginning?
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Martin Jansa
>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:59:15PM +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> > On 20 March 2014 19:01, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> >> This init script is adding support for sysv and no more. This is also
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:59:15PM +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 20 March 2014 19:01, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> This init script is adding support for sysv and no more. This is also
> >> indicated in the first line of the commit message. I a
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 20 March 2014 19:01, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> This init script is adding support for sysv and no more. This is also
>> indicated in the first line of the commit message. I am sorry, but I
>> will not test it systemd and with other systems
>
>
On 20 March 2014 19:01, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> This init script is adding support for sysv and no more. This is also
> indicated in the first line of the commit message. I am sorry, but I
> will not test it systemd and with other systems
You're not being asked to test with systemd. You're being as
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 14:28 heeft Burton, Ross het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 20 March 2014 12:44, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>>> You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but
>>> do not expect it to weigh much that way, at
What is actually probably a bigger issue than the LSB, is that the
conf is currently sourced. That means if it contains an "rm -rf /"
statement, it will execute it.
Perhaps, this should be solved more gently...
--
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Open
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> On 20 March 2014 12:44, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>>> You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but
>>> do not expect it to weigh much that way, at least in my eyes, base
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 20 March 2014 12:44, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but
>> do not expect it to weigh much that way, at least in my eyes, based on
>> that you are not even a maintainer as far as I kno
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
And the initscript is missing LSB headers.
>>>
>>> Just like the other similar scripts.
>>
>> This does not mean we ought to make the problem worse so add it for
>> new ones. If you are in good mood, send a fix for the others too ;)
>
> I do
Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 14:28 heeft Burton, Ross het
volgende geschreven:
> On 20 March 2014 12:44, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but
>> do not expect it to weigh much that way, at least in my eyes, based on
>> that you are not even a mainta
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:47PM +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Otavio Salvador
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp
On 20 March 2014 12:44, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but
> do not expect it to weigh much that way, at least in my eyes, based on
> that you are not even a maintainer as far as I know.
One good reason: systemd reads the LSB headers.
Ross
-
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Otavio Salvador
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi
wrote:
>>
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi
>>> wrote:
Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross het
v
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Pap
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi
> wrote:
>>
>> Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp wrote:
+PEER=127.0.0.1
>>>
>>> That doesn't seem like a ver
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>>> +PEER=127.0.0.1
>>
>> That doesn't seem like a very useful default. We also can't use the
>> NTP pool by default, s
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> +PEER=127.0.0.1
>
> That doesn't seem like a very useful default. We also can't use the
> NTP pool by default, so this should copy the behaviour of the ntpd
> package in meta-networking and defa
Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross het
volgende geschreven:
> On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> +PEER=127.0.0.1
>
> That doesn't seem like a very useful default. We also can't use the
> NTP pool by default, so this should copy the behaviour of the ntpd
> package in meta
On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> +PEER=127.0.0.1
That doesn't seem like a very useful default. We also can't use the
NTP pool by default, so this should copy the behaviour of the ntpd
package in meta-networking and default to no peers, and not start if
none are specified.
Ross
--
_
---
meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox.inc | 10 --
meta/recipes-core/busybox/busybox_1.22.1.bb | 2 ++
meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/busybox-ntpd | 39 +++
meta/recipes-core/busybox/files/busybox-ntpd.conf | 1 +
4 files changed, 50 insertions(+),
27 matches
Mail list logo
