Al Dunsmuir wrote on Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:36:53 -0400:
>I think these [file names such as "multi-user.target"] should be
>viewed more as keywords, or reserved phrases
>and not subject to translation.
>
>This is similar to a C program, where one has 3 cases:
>- Comments and literal string can have
On Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 3:21:09 PM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
>>On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 10:49 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>> Indeed ... there is something simplistically elegant about:
>>>
>>> 3
>>> vs
>>> multi-user.target
>>
>>Or, you could look upon it as 'utterly cryptic'. At least
On 07/04/11 01:06, Adam Pribyl wrote:
> You are right. The problem with systemd is that those arguments are
> filenames, but you can not use "tab" for autocompletition. ATM systemd can
> translate "3" to multi-user.target which is OK, but in the future who
> knows. Acctualy if I understand the con
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 17:06 +0200, Adam Pribyl wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 15:21 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> >
> >> I should think "3" presents very little problem for internationalization,
> >> whereas "multi-user.target" demands translation
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 15:21 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
>
>> I should think "3" presents very little problem for internationalization,
>> whereas "multi-user.target" demands translation before it "explains
>> itself" to non-English-speaking users. Be
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 15:21 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> I should think "3" presents very little problem for internationalization,
> whereas "multi-user.target" demands translation before it "explains
> itself" to non-English-speaking users. Because these are descriptive
> file names, not just
>On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 10:49 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>> Indeed ... there is something simplistically elegant about:
>>
>> 3
>> vs
>> multi-user.target
>
>Or, you could look upon it as 'utterly cryptic'. At least
>multi-user.target takes a shot at explaining itself. 3...3, well, n
On 04/05/2011 12:57 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 10:49 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>> Indeed ... there is something simplistically elegant about:
>>
>> 3
>> vs
>> multi-user.target
>
> Or, you could look upon it as 'utterly cryptic'. At least
> multi-user.targe
On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 10:49 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> Indeed ... there is something simplistically elegant about:
>
> 3
> vs
> multi-user.target
Or, you could look upon it as 'utterly cryptic'. At least
multi-user.target takes a shot at explaining itself. 3...3, well, not so
much
On 04/02/2011 02:14 PM, Adam Pribyl wrote
> My inittab still states only that it is for upstart to set runlevel..
Then the new file must have been written as /etc/inittab.rpmnew
Rahul
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listi
On 04/02/2011 04:44 AM, Adam Pribyl wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
...
>
>> systemd's native concept is 'targets'; graphical.target is roughly
>> equivalent to runlevel 5 and multi-user.target is roughly equivalent to
>> runlevel 3. rescue.target is roughly equal to runleve
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 21:40 +0200, Adam Pribyl wrote:
>
>> Did you found any way how to force systemd to boot to single-user? So far
>> my installation of F15 with systemd has only one runlevel, I can not
>> switch it - nor with grub option, neither wit
On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 09:44:03PM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
> It is also useful to know how to rescue a failed X session after
> booting and in the middle of a graphical problem once logged in.
>
> On the old (current!) days you could switch also to a non-graphical VT
> and enter telinit 3 to go
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> systemd's native concept is 'targets'; graphical.target is roughly
> equivalent to runlevel 5 and multi-user.target is roughly equivalent to
> runlevel 3. rescue.target is roughly equal to runlevel 1, and there's
> emergency.target that's m
On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 21:40 +0200, Adam Pribyl wrote:
> Did you found any way how to force systemd to boot to single-user? So far
> my installation of F15 with systemd has only one runlevel, I can not
> switch it - nor with grub option, neither with inittab or init command.
systemd doesn't real
On 03/31/2011 10:40 PM, Adam Pribyl wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2011 07:51 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/3/31 Scott Robbinsmailto:scot...@nyc.rr.com>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet another reason setting grub's timeout to 0 was a very bad idea,
>>> es
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 07:51 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2011/3/31 Scott Robbins mailto:scot...@nyc.rr.com>>
>>
>>
>> Yet another reason setting grub's timeout to 0 was a very bad idea,
>> especially in VMs.
>>
>>
>> indeed, i had to boot another
W dniu 31 marca 2011 18:26 użytkownik Daniel J Walsh
napisał:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/31/2011 12:20 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> W dniu 31 marca 2011 18:18 użytkownik Daniel J Walsh
>> napisał:
>> [..]
>>> Well if you don't have /etc/selinux/config then boot
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 07:51:43PM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
>
>
> Yet another reason setting grub's timeout to 0 was a very bad idea,
> especially in VMs.
>
>
> indeed, i had to boot another operating system to increase the timeout so that
> i can change the kernel line when needed.
On 03/31/2011 07:51 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
>
>
> 2011/3/31 Scott Robbins mailto:scot...@nyc.rr.com>>
>
>
> Yet another reason setting grub's timeout to 0 was a very bad idea,
> especially in VMs.
>
>
> indeed, i had to boot another operating system to increase the timeout
> so that i can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/31/2011 12:20 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> W dniu 31 marca 2011 18:18 użytkownik Daniel J Walsh
> napisał:
> [..]
>> Well if you don't have /etc/selinux/config then booting without
>> selinux=0 will cause the system to crash. If you want to d
2011/3/31 Scott Robbins
>
> Yet another reason setting grub's timeout to 0 was a very bad idea,
> especially in VMs.
>
indeed, i had to boot another operating system to increase the timeout so
that i can change the kernel line when needed
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On 03/31/2011 06:12 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:58:22 -0400,
Scott Robbins wrote:
I thought that enforcing=0 was considered a better option, no, as it
avoided relabling. (I would be grateful if someone can either confirm
or correct that statement.)
Yes, enforcing
W dniu 31 marca 2011 18:18 użytkownik Daniel J Walsh
napisał:
[..]
> Well if you don't have /etc/selinux/config then booting without
> selinux=0 will cause the system to crash. If you want to disable
> SELinux you need to tell the system by settingup /etc/selinux/config.
>
> If the system is blow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31/03/11 18:09, Joachim Backes wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 05:50 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> W dniu 31 marca 2011 17:39 użytkownik Joachim Backes
>> napisał:
>>> On 03/31/2011 05:32 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
2011/3/31 Mat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/31/2011 12:14 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> W dniu 31 marca 2011 18:09 użytkownik Joachim Backes
> napisał:
>> On 03/31/2011 05:50 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>>
>>> W dniu 31 marca 2011 17:39 użytkownik Joachim Backes
>>> napisał:
>>>
W dniu 31 marca 2011 18:09 użytkownik Joachim Backes
napisał:
> On 03/31/2011 05:50 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 31 marca 2011 17:39 użytkownik Joachim Backes
>> napisał:
>>>
>>> On 03/31/2011 05:32 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
2011/3/31 Matthias Runge:
>
On 03/31/2011 09:58 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
>
> Yet another reason setting grub's timeout to 0 was a very bad idea,
> especially in VMs.
virt-rescue (part of libguestfs) is very handy for changing the grub
timeout of an offline VM.
--
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com+1-801-349-2682
Libvirt v
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:58:22 -0400,
Scott Robbins wrote:
> I thought that enforcing=0 was considered a better option, no, as it
> avoided relabling. (I would be grateful if someone can either confirm
> or correct that statement.)
Yes, enforcing=0 is a better temporary workaround than selin
On 03/31/2011 05:50 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
W dniu 31 marca 2011 17:39 użytkownik Joachim Backes
napisał:
On 03/31/2011 05:32 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
2011/3/31 Matthias Runge:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
the subject says all:
Since systemd(?) updat
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 05:39:41PM +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 05:32 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >>the subject says all:
> >>Since systemd(?) update an hour ago, my test system does not boot any
> >>more. removing "rhgb quiet" from kernel command line shows
> >>Failed
W dniu 31 marca 2011 17:39 użytkownik Joachim Backes
napisał:
> On 03/31/2011 05:32 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2011/3/31 Matthias Runge:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> the subject says all:
>>> Since systemd(?) update an hour ago,
On 03/31/2011 05:32 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
2011/3/31 Matthias Runge:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
the subject says all:
Since systemd(?) update an hour ago, my test system does not boot any
more. removing "rhgb quiet" from kernel command line shows
Failed to
Hi,
2011/3/31 Matthias Runge :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> the subject says all:
> Since systemd(?) update an hour ago, my test system does not boot any
> more. removing "rhgb quiet" from kernel command line shows
> Failed to load SELINUX policy
> Failed to set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
the subject says all:
Since systemd(?) update an hour ago, my test system does not boot any
more. removing "rhgb quiet" from kernel command line shows
Failed to load SELINUX policy
Failed to set security context... for /run: invalid argument
Fa
35 matches
Mail list logo
