On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 10:04 +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Hi Clint,
>
> This merge request only consists of a changelog entry?
>
I had forgotten to bzr add. The file is now listed in the MP.
>
> Do you think it reasonable that we parse the console= line in Upstart
> itself, and make the value of that available to jobs that want it.
> What kind of consoles do we want to support? Do we want to support
> multiple console= values? How does the kernel interpret this field
> already?
>
I love that idea.
> I think this is a discussion you should start on the upstart mailing
> list, because it seems like something we need "smart" handling for
> built-in.
>
On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 10:04 +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Hi Clint,
>
> This merge request only consists of a changelog entry?
>
I had forgotten to bzr add. The file is now listed in the MP.
>
> Do you think it reasonable that we parse the console= line in Upstart
> itself, and make the value of that available to jobs that want it.
> What kind of consoles do we want to support? Do we want to support
> multiple console= values? How does the kernel interpret this field
> already?
>
I love that idea.
> I think this is a discussion you should start on the upstart mailing
> list, because it seems like something we need "smart" handling for
> built-in.
>
Sounds good, I'll take it up there.