[00:11] <SpamapS> ahammond: indeed.. tweaks here and there just make them simpler
[00:12] <SpamapS> expect exit should also eliminate some unsightly post-start's
[02:25] <bradleyayers> i'm using ubuntu 10.04 lts, but i want to use upstart 1.4, is this possible?
[03:21] <SpamapS> bradleyayers: in theory it would work fine
[03:22] <bradleyayers> i'm cherry picking the dependencies from 11.10 
[03:22] <SpamapS> bradleyayers: the package might not work without some mods, but the upstream bits would probably be fine.
[03:22] <bradleyayers> Plesk is installed on the server, so i'm concerned it might break that, since it does all sorts of stupid shit
[03:23] <SpamapS> hah yeah .. plesk + anything different == immolation of your entire business
[03:23] <bradleyayers> it's horrible D:
[03:25] <bradleyayers> uhh how do i get dpkg to install two things that depend on each other: http://dpaste.com/690059/ :(
[03:27] <bradleyayers> oops, i should really ask in ubuntu
[07:34] <brodock> can someone please take a look at this question: http://serverfault.com/questions/337198/upstart-output-pre-start-script-content/351124 ? Is there a better way to do it?
[17:32] <SpamapS> jodh: Hey, I'm working on an upstart cookbook fix and I noticed this language ...
[17:32] <SpamapS> The advantage of using `start-stop-daemon(8)`_ is that is simply changes the
[17:32] <SpamapS> user and group the command is run as. However, there is a problem with
[17:32] <SpamapS> using ``start-stop-daemon`` in that Upstart cannot track the PID for jobs
[17:32] <SpamapS> which use it
[17:32] <SpamapS> I don't see why that would be the case
[17:33] <SpamapS> running that way drops user privs, then execs the requested command.. so upstart should be able to handle it just fine
[20:43] <tmike> Hello.  I'm trying to build upstart for an LFS environment and having some issues with failing the tests.
[20:54] <SpamapS> tmike: pastebin your failure maybe?
[20:54] <tmike> http://pastebin.com/rZmbnhDa
[20:54] <tmike> Sorry got distracted setting up pastebincl on the vm
[20:56] <tmike> test_job_process sees the wrong output for the /this/command/does/not/exist bits
[20:56] <tmike> that's the first error
[20:58] <tmike> That 'wrong content' part, with the test_job_process is not the first error of that variety.  I went and changed the test to look for "No such file or directory" and then started to wonder if there's a reason it wants 1: /this/blah: not found instead of the "No such"
[20:59] <tmike> Actually, if I don't run the tests as superuser, those are the only errors I get.
[21:09] <tmike> Should I just ignore the failures, or is there a reason to expect the "not found" errors vs the "No such" errors
[21:09] <tmike> ?