similar to: init script status checks and puppet

Here are the items removed when removing postfix: Nov 1 09:56:59 localhost yum[22042]: Erased: google-chrome-stable Nov 1 09:57:00 localhost yum[22042]: Erased: redhat-lsb-compat Nov 1 09:57:00 localhost yum[22042]: Erased: redhat-lsb Nov 1 09:57:01 localhost yum[22042]: Erased: redhat-lsb-graphics Nov 1 09:57:01 localhost yum[22042]: Erased: redhat-lsb-printing Nov 1 09:57:02 localhost

Dearest list, I am using dovecot with heartbeat-2 and I noticed that the init scripts in the Debian packages from http://xi.rename-it.nl/debian/ do not conform to the LSB standard: http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.1/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/iniscrptact.html E.g. the return code for "program is not running" is not 3. Is there is special reason for this? Cheers Jan --

Hello list, I would add: # dovecot Startup script for the dovecot server # # chkconfig: - # processname: dovecot # config: /path/to/config # pidfile: /path/to/pid So that it supports the chkconfig used by RHEL and clones too. Also, maybe it should be installed by the Makefile's install target? it could then also set: DAEMON=/path/to/dovecot/daemon instead of:

Hi Timo, please find attached a patch for the init script in the doc directory. * Added LSB-compliant info block (for insserv and friends) * Updated base_dir detection (for v2.0 config output) Regards, Pascal -- The trapper recommends today: decade.0932307 at localdomain.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: dovecot-initd_LSB_header.patch

I''m working with a similar model in Episode 73, (my scenario is editing multiple pictures for a product using attachment_fu). And I''m getting an error when I try the technique suggested: ./views/admin/_form.rhtml <% for picture in product.pictures %> <% fields_for "product[picture_attributes][]", picture do | picture_form| %> Title: <%=

Hi Rafael, I've been staring at the CFI directives and have a question. Some background: I want to generate the compact unwind information using just the CFI directives. I *think* that this should be doable. The issue I'm facing right now is that I need to know how much the stack pointer was adjusted. So when I have something like this: .cfi_startproc Lfunc_begin175:

i have a model with this: file_column :image validates_file_format_of :image, :in => ["gif", "png", "jpg"] If inthe form the user not insert the image i receive an error. If i remove: validates_file_format_of :image, :in => ["gif", "png", "jpg"] it works. Is possible do the validation only when user insert the image in form? i

On 5 September 2013 19:27, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > I've been staring at the CFI directives and have a question. Some background: I want to generate the compact unwind information using just the CFI directives. I *think* that this should be doable. The issue I'm facing right now is that I need to know how much the stack pointer was

Hi, I'm recently trying to investigate ppc_fp128 related problem. Here is a minimal C++ test case that seems wrongly compiled: long double id(long double a) { return a; } bool f(long double x) { return id(__builtin_fabsl(x)) >= 0; } int main() { if (f(-123.l)) { return 0; } return 1; } The program compiled with command: clang++ -static -target powerpc64le-linux-gnu bad.cc

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > If the powers at be want this, I could easily transform the source to the LLVM coding standards, and add > the necessary portable UNIX support--someone else would have to add non-UNIX support although the > System library probably helps with this. However I'm guessing the LLVM release flux of the

Nick, Do you happen to know why the version reported in 'dwarfdump --eh-frame' for object files now differs when compiled with and without -g? The test used in FSF gcc's configure produces a diff of.. % diff -u conftest.o.g.stripped.dwarfdump conftest.o.g0.stripped.dwarfdump --- conftest.o.g.stripped.dwarfdump 2015-04-10 21:43:15.000000000 -0400 +++

After fix bug 130 and 131, and some LTP bugs. ocfs2 can now pass all LTP filesystem related system call testcases. detail result see attach. ------------------- Intel China Software Lab. iNet: 8-752-1243 8621-52574545-1243(O) xfling@users.sourceforge.net Opinions are my own and don't represent those of my employer -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

If the powers at be want this, I could easily transform the source to the LLVM coding standards, and add the necessary portable UNIX support--someone else would have to add non-UNIX support although the System library probably helps with this. However I'm guessing the LLVM release flux of the exception system, along with a lack of universal platform, dwarf JIT support might be a hinderance in

In lib/gcc_personality_v0.c, I believe the type of the exception_cleanup member of the struct _Unwind_Exception is incorrect. It has a return type of _Unwind_Reason_Code versus a return type of void as specified in http://refspecs.freestandards.org/abi-eh-1.21.html, and as can be seen in unwind.h on Linux, and OS X 10.6.x (the latter's unwind.h is under the Developer directory tree). The

Hey All, Could someone provide a URL to a page that states what LSB level RHEL/CentOS 6.4 is certified to. I'm looking to download a driver: http://www.openprinting.org/printer/Epson/Epson-WorkForce_1100 They offer a driver for LSB 3.1 or LSB 3.2. I'm hoping that one of those applies to CentOS 6.4. -- _ ?v? /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registered Linux user No #267004

Hi Jim, I didn't use any documents, but intensively looked at gcc's output. I think this document: http://refspecs.freestandards.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf is the last specification of the ABI. Cheers, Nicolas Jim Laskey wrote: > Nicolas, > > Would you point me to the Linux/PPC ABI documents you are using so I > can better judge what your restrictions are? These changes

From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org> > There is nothing wrong with using X11 at runlevel 3. The only thing > that can't be present is a display manager (KDM, XDM, GDM etc). That's _exactly_ what I'm talking about. Run-level 3 starts xdm. Several Linux distros use 2 for multi-user, 3 for multi-user w/X. Run-level 2 as multi-user w/o networking or w/o NFS was

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM Gao, Yunzhong < yunzhong_gao at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > According to > http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi.html, > "The high-order double-precision value (the one that comes first in > storage) must have the larger magnitude." > > So the order of the two doubles in your fp128 is not affected by the

I notice that many DAG nodes like the copy-to-register operation have the ability to take an optional flag parameter, but that the load/store nodes do not (at least as of 2.3). Is it possible to pass flag operands through load/store DAG nodes?

On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Burke, Max wrote: > I notice that many DAG nodes like the copy-to-register operation have > the ability to take an optional flag parameter, but that the load/ > store > nodes do not (at least as of 2.3). Is it possible to pass flag > operands > through load/store DAG nodes? No there isn't. What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to